tobyzusa Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Apparently there was a bit of a rout in this girls basketball game in Texas. 100-0 Whoopin' Do you think remorse is the appropriate response to the outcome of this athletic competition? Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I think it's utterly foolish that there's such hand wringing over this. Link to comment
baggerchris Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Around here they have limits, and then just call the game. Very humane. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You've got to be f***ing kidding me. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't know that remorse is what I think they should feel. However, there is a certain amount of embarrassment they should feel for displaying lousy sportsmanship. I think. My high school hockey team regularly played another team that was just awful. One time, we mustered a team of 7 and still beat them 15-0. Another time, when we were fully manned, once we hit 15, our coach ordered that we weren't to score anymore. During the rest of the game, I had several occasions to be 1-on-0 on the goalie, and I'd just pull the puck back, circle around, and pass it out to one of my teammates. I was never really sure if that sort of thing was worse for the other team than just scoring. It felt somehow better. And heck, they kept playing us, so they couldn't have thought it was too awful. Worse was when some team better team from up north (we were in Dayton, OH; not a hockey hotbed) would come down and do the same thing to us... I think I did sort of appreciate when they would stop scoring, but I don't really remember. Link to comment
Gregori Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Why didn't the losing coach simply forfeit? As long as the 'disadvantaged' team CHOSE to continue to play, what's the problem? Link to comment
SeanC Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 However, there is a certain amount of embarrassment they should feel for displaying lousy sportsmanship. I think. What was lousy about their sportsmanship? Link to comment
SweetP Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Winless in four seasons with the same coach, maybe it's time the school re-assess whether they should have a team or not. The coach is quoted as saying he considered it a 'win' because the girls played hard right to the end. No, coach, it was a loss. The last time we get graded for 'effort' is around about the third grade. Please say you'd rather win-win. Mercifully, the head of the academy cancelled the rest of the season's games, saying 'The hell with it'. Link to comment
smiller Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Mercifully, the head of the academy cancelled the rest of the season games, saying 'The hell with it'. What an unusually logical response. Link to comment
Bheckel169 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What happened to the slaughter rule? In many sports, especially in youth baseball, a team which reaches a score that borders on a slaughter is given the win. It's automatic. This game should have been shut down at the half and everybody goes home. Bruce Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What happened to the slaughter rule? In many sports, especially in youth baseball, a team which reaches a score that borders on a slaughter is given the win. It's automatic. This game should have been shut down at the half and everybody goes home. Bruce Why? Link to comment
Nice n Easy Rider Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What happened to the slaughter rule? In many sports, especially in youth baseball, a team which reaches a score that borders on a slaughter is given the win. It's automatic. This game should have been shut down at the half and everybody goes home. Bruce Why? I think they should have called it at the half and gone out for a beer (coaches obviously; winning coach buying). Link to comment
Mike Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Apparently there was a bit of a rout in this girls basketball game in Texas. 100-0 Whoopin' Do you think remorse is the appropriate response to the outcome of this athletic competition? While it's a bunch of schoolgirls playing basketball and not a matter of life and death, my sense of right and wrong, perhaps formed somewhat by my time as a military officer tells me that the notion of chivalry should occasionally enter into our day-to-day lives. Maybe these are the values we should be teaching our children, rather than urging a "take no prisoners" approach to a trivial game. If the proponents of high-school sports are right in their assertion that the lessons of the playing field are manifested throughout one's life, what are we teaching these little gladiators? That it's okay to kick your opponent when they're down? That another's weakness justifies you dominating them? I'm kind of serious about this . . . I'm not so sure that the quality of mercy is a bad thing to teach a child. Link to comment
swfraley Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 In Indiana, seeding for state tournaments takes margin of victory in account. So, sometimes they run the scores up. OTOH, I'm not sure you get a better seed for 100-0 than, say, 60-4. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Apparently there was a bit of a rout in this girls basketball game in Texas. 100-0 Whoopin' Do you think remorse is the appropriate response to the outcome of this athletic competition? While it's a bunch of schoolgirls playing basketball and not a matter of life and death, my sense of right and wrong, perhaps formed somewhat by my time as a military officer tells me that the notion of chivalry should occasionally enter into our day-to-day lives. Maybe these are the values we should be teaching our children, rather than urging a "take no prisoners" approach to a trivial game. If the proponents of high-school sports are right in their assertion that the lessons of the playing field are manifested throughout one's life, what are we teaching these little gladiators? That it's okay to kick your opponent when they're down? That another's weakness justifies you dominating them? I'm kind of serious about this . . . I'm not so sure that the quality of mercy is a bad thing to teach a child. I'm all for sportsmanship...the winning team shouldn't be taunting the losing team or anything like that. But if you deserve to win 100-0 you should win 100-0. And I say that as a guy who sucks at sports and was on the 0 side of that equation far more often than not. Link to comment
smiller Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 ...the winning team shouldn't be taunting the losing team or anything like that. Sure, no reason to think anything like that was going on in a 100-0 game... If the proponents of high-school sports are right in their assertion that the lessons of the playing field are manifested throughout one's life, what are we teaching these little gladiators? That it's okay to kick your opponent when they're down? That another's weakness justifies you dominating them? I'm kind of serious about this . . . I'm not so sure that the quality of mercy is a bad thing to teach a child. I think that's well said Mike. Link to comment
tobyzusa Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 . . . I'm not so sure that the quality of mercy is a bad thing to teach a child. I couldn't agree more. Too bad the winning Team didn't say that they wished they had demonstrated mercy to their opponents, rather than saying they feel remorseful for the outcome of the contest. On one side you have the "everyone gets a trophy" crowd. On the other, you have the "take no prisoners" camp. Like many things in life, my guess is the right answer is somewhere in the middle. I've always believed that competition in athletics, and for that matter, in business is a good thing. The fact that this is a story says something about the shift in American culture and popular beliefs. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 If the proponents of high-school sports are right in their assertion that the lessons of the playing field are manifested throughout one's life, what are we teaching these little gladiators? That it's okay to kick your opponent when they're down? That another's weakness justifies you dominating them? I'm kind of serious about this . . . I'm not so sure that the quality of mercy is a bad thing to teach a child. I think that's well said Mike. I just don't get it. Should Michael Phelps have to stop and dog-paddle for a while to let everyone catch up before he touches the wall? As long as the kids are playing by the rules and playing fair (Sometimes there's a difference), and not being pissy about it, then they should play the best game they can play. If that means they win 100-0, so be it. Personally, I'd rather lose 100-0 than play 50-0 and then quit. Link to comment
JohnnyJ Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I think the "run-up" was appalling. I suspect the winning coach has self-esteem issues, and has to live vicariously through others because of his own lack of talent. When I played adult-league basketball or roller hockey, and it became evident that a runaway was about to happen, it was common to mix and match players from both teams and keep playing. I think "remorse" is appropriate here. In the end it is ONLY A GAME. Link to comment
Jake Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Phelps schmelps. You get it, you know you do, Mr. Devils Advocate. 100-0 is strutting. Grade A Good Americans simply don't do this. Link to comment
Joel Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 As a former coach, I'd say remorse would be appropriate if the winners acted like jerks, but not otherwise, in a regularly-scheduled league game. Having the score get out of hand doesn't necessarily mean that one team or coach were jerks. No coach should have to tell players not to play -- that's an insult to the other team and coach. If your team's 3rd stringers can whup my starters, well, that's competition. OTOH, any coach who keeps up a full-court press after taking a huge lead (say, like, 59 - 0 at halftime) is being a collossal jerk. Put in the backups, back off the press, but otherwise let 'em play. I'm not offended by the 3-pointers. That's a lower percentage shot than the layups the starters were getting, and if the defense can't at least get a hand in the shooter's face once in a while, the final score is indicative of a much larger problem on the part of the losing team. Link to comment
Boone60 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I think the coach should have stopped the full court press, played his whole bench, and practiced running plays after they had the game under control. If the score then ended up the same, there would be nothing to apologize for. There is also something to learn from this game by the losing team that is lost by the forfeiture. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Phelps schmelps. You get it, you know you do, Mr. Devils Advocate. 100-0 is strutting. Grade A Good Americans simply don't do this. I'm not playing devil's advocate at all. You play the best you can play and if that means you win by a mile, that means you win by a mile. Link to comment
smiller Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Should Michael Phelps have to stop and dog-paddle for a while to let everyone catch up before he touches the wall? You're really going to try to make an analogy between an Olympic competition between the world's best athletes whose performance is separated by hundredths of a second and a lopsided high school basketball game? OK. Personally, I'd rather lose 100-0 than play 50-0 and then quit. I understand the sentiment, but I think people are talking about the winners being graceful rather than the losers quitting. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Should Michael Phelps have to stop and dog-paddle for a while to let everyone catch up before he touches the wall? You're really going to try to make an analogy between an Olympic competition between the world's best athletes whose performance is separated by hundredths of a second and a lopsided high school basketball game? OK. Yes. Obviously the stakes are higher for the Olympics, but I don't see why it would be OK to win by a big margin in one case and not in another. Phelps was in Highschool at some point, I'm assuming. And I assume he was leaps and bounds better than anyone else then, too. Should he have been required to stop and dogpaddle for a while before touching the wall? I guess I just don't see the problem. If you're a better team, you win. If you're MUCH better, you win by a bunch. As long as you're playing fair and being good sports about it, what's the issue? Personally, I'd rather lose 100-0 than play 50-0 and then quit. I understand the sentiment, but I think people are talking about the winners being graceful rather than the losers quitting. Someone suggested that the losing team forfeit the game. I'm not sure what you mean by graceful. If it means something other than "continue playing to the best of your ability" then I'm not in favor of that. Link to comment
Jake Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 As long as you're playing fair and being good sports about it, what's the issue? Agreed, but I think you can find a little room in your sensibilities of fair play that they weren't being good sports about it. The coach should have told his dominant team to ease up a bit once the game was well in hand. At least let them (attempt to) score a few and have something to take home to their parents. If it's 70-30, this would not be my advise, but at 50-0, it sure would be. Link to comment
KDeline Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 [quote Agreed, but I think you can find a little room in your sensibilities of fair play that they weren't being good sports about it. The coach should have told his dominant team to ease up a bit once the game was well in hand. At least let them (attempt to) score a few and have something to take home to their parents. If it's 70-30, this would not be my advise, but at 50-0, it sure would be. Yea, that method will get them ready for life in the real world. Life's tough, get use to it. (And yes, I was on the losing end most of the time, not just in silly sports either.) Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 However, there is a certain amount of embarrassment they should feel for displaying lousy sportsmanship. I think. What was lousy about their sportsmanship? Running up a score is little more than showboating. There are lots of ways to continue to play a team while continuing to dominate it without doing that. Even in basketball. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Yea, that method will get them ready for life in the real world. Life's tough, get use to it. (And yes, I was on the losing end most of the time, not just in silly sports either.) At the risk of sounding like Ken, life's not a zero-sum game. There are more ways to win than pummeling opponents to death. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 As long as you're playing fair and being good sports about it, what's the issue? Agreed, but I think you can find a little room in your sensibilities of fair play that they weren't being good sports about it. The coach should have told his dominant team to ease up a bit once the game was well in hand. At least let them (attempt to) score a few and have something to take home to their parents. If it's 70-30, this would not be my advise, but at 50-0, it sure would be. I just don't get it, I guess. I pretty much sucked at all of the popular sports, I'm quite familiar with being on the losing side. When my High School Marching Band went to the Area marching contest, we were up against much bigger MUCH better bands. It wasn't even a contest....we might as well have been a couple of guys with a kazoo and a broken drum stick and our ranking showed it. Should the better bands have stepped it down a bit (maybe not done the percussion feature with the entire drumline blindfolded, for example) to make us feel better? The last time I was in a sailboat race, we were completely obliterated by the rest of the fleet. Should they have all capsized and just floated along throwing oranges at each other to let us catch up a little bit? I really don't understand what the problem is. If the other team/player/whatever is better than you, you lose. If they're MUCH better than you, you lose big. So what? Is everyone's self-esteem really THAT low these days...and if so, does a pitty play make that better or worse? Link to comment
JohnnyJ Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Besides being a bad sportsman, the coach also proved to have a lack of intelligence. The teams he will play from this point on will have strong motivation to pummel them... and I hope they do. It was not good strategy. The quality teams, even in professional sports, ease-up in the face of a rout. I see it happen all the time with my beloved USC Trojans. You do not want to give other teams additional motivation to beat you. I think the girls will have remorse, but the coach is doubtful. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I really don't understand what the problem is. If the other team/player/whatever is better than you, you lose. If they're MUCH better than you, you lose big. So what? Is everyone's self-esteem really THAT low these days...and if so, does a pitty play make that better or worse? Get off the self-esteem nonsense. It has nothing to do with that. The losing team wasn't and isn't crying foul. They stood there and took it. The issue is simple manners. It's poor sportsmanship to rub the other team's face in their failure. Wikipedia even says so, so don't even try arguing. (Your analogies don't really work. Marching band competitions are competitions for marks from judges; there's no head-to-head fight. And unless it's NASCAR-style boat racing with bumping and stuff, I don't see how point-to-point racing works, either.) Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Besides being a bad sportsman, the coach also proved to have a lack of intelligence. The teams he will play from this point on will have strong motivation to pummel them. And I hope they do. It was not good strategy. The quality teams, even in professional sports, ease-up in the face of a rout. I think the girls will have remorse, but the coach is doubtful. That's hysterical... Many coaches, especially in college football revel in just such a challenge and use that kind of "bullseye" on their backs as a motivator to make their teams focus on execution and attention to detail. Pete Carol, Bobby Bowden, Steve Spurrier, Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops, just to name a few. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Many coaches, especially in college football revel in just such a challenge and use that kind of "bullseye" on their backs as a motivator to make their teams focus on execution and attention to detail. Of course, complaints about running up the score are meaningless in college football, because the perverse system of ranking performance depends upon the practice. Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think you meant to say "defends" the practice since margin is taken into account in those rankings. Would that be correct? Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think you meant to say "defends" the practice since margin is taken into account in those rankings. Would that be correct? No. I meant "depends." Sportswriters would have no idea how to vote if they had to judge close games with any regularity. Link to comment
Boone60 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think you meant to say "defends" the practice since margin is taken into account in those rankings. Would that be correct? No. I meant "depends." Sportswriters would have no idea how to vote if they had to judge close games with any regularity. Sweet sixteen college football and then it might be different. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Sweet sixteen college football and then it might be different. Maybe for the first 15. 16 and 17 might feel the need to show some might. Link to comment
tallman Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 A few points (sic). First, the 100 point barrier is a significant one in high school basketball. Not saying anything about whether it should be, but it is. Second, as a coach, I saw games go both ways and there is no easy solution. It may be worse to intentionally try to not score as your opponent could rightfully take that as extreme condescension, a big put down, major dis. Third, as an official, I've seen one-sided contests. I would try to call the game fairly, but at times, it would be hard to do, particularly if showbaoting was involved. As a player, I often competed against centers who were much taller and bigger than I am. I frequently took a beating, but never quit, always looked forward to the challenge. We played the biggest schools to fill the gym for revenue and then played schools our size in a lower classification when playoffs began. We had a playoff game in which I was actually playing people my size and started off well, on the way to a career game. The coach pulled me, I sat the rest of the game. No career game to reminisce about, instead I recall my frustration at having endured the competition all year (several of the other centers went on to the NBA, and many to play in college) getting the short :/end of the stick for 25 games, and then when the court was level, not getting a chance to enjoy the night. We routed them anyways. When Coach Heisman had this predicament at GT, on the way to the 222-0 drubbing of Cumberland (in football), the clock ran the entire second half in an effort to keep the score down. We name the biggest award in college football after him. Perhaps his example would be one to emulate. Best wishes. Link to comment
Richard_D Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 It turns out the whole school only has 20 girls and the basketball team has only 8 players. I believe the school also caters to special needs students. Link to comment
SeanC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Running up a score is little more than showboating. There are lots of ways to continue to play a team while continuing to dominate it without doing that. Even in basketball. 100 is not a high score against a team that can't sink a single basket. They could have easily scored 140 or more, and it sounds like they used the opportunity to practice three-pointers, which also means they probably slowed the pace of the game somewhat. There's nothing to suggest the team that won showed "lousy sportsmanship." This idea some of you hold that they should have dumbed down their game, shown "mercy," etc., is simply patronizing BS, and has nothing to do with athletics or the spirit of competition. If I were a member of such a bad team, I wouldn't appreciate being coddled by my opponents because we sucked. Link to comment
Skywagon Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Can you say the BCS.... Can you say the BCS Sucks. There are some college teams in the top 10 that deserved a shot at the National Championship. AKA Mack Brown teaches sportsmanship is part of the education and won't allow his team to run it up. AKA Stoops sees it as an opportunity to show off his teams talents. When the BCS, the NFL, and others reward for a margin of victory, why would we expect any different behavior from our high school coaches. I never coached, but I went to school on an athletic scholarship. When we blew out the other team. We were COACHED to put in the subs, the guys who didn't play much or at all. When we were getting blown out, we would put in the b/c team and the team kicking our arses would usually follow. We would even swap positions and play a position you weren't good at. I don't know if it is right or wrong, but again as long as we reward adults for running it up, why would we hold our children to a different measure. Link to comment
Bheckel169 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Russell, The Slaughter Rule doesn't equate to quitting. It means that if a certain team has a significantly larger point score and they reach a "drop dead" score, then the game just ends earlier. All the kids know about it. It isn't quitting. It's part of the game and a rule. 50 to 0 is still a loss and they go home knowing they lost but what's the point of running up a score for the sake of running up a score? Oh, probably more importantly, why is this team who has just a few players and students playing against a bigger school. That's why there are different leagues for things like this. They shouldn't have been playing each other in the first place. Bruce Link to comment
Jake Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Well, no matter which way you look at this, here is a pic of the "losers". They look like winners to me. Link to comment
leikam Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Let me just point out that the winning team did let up at the end. Covenant scored 12 points in the fourth quarter and "finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left" With 4 minutes left, after they scored their 100th point, that's when they decided to quit scoring. It's not like they played hard or consistently until the final buzzer and happened to have scored 100. They could have decided that it was enough was at halftime, but for some reason, they wanted to reach 100 points. Why was that a lead they could live with but 90-0 was not? The game was exactly parallel to Greg's 15-0 hockey games. I don't know that remorse from the winning team is appropriate, but I do think it would have been gracious to let up much sooner. From the losing team's track record, everybody knew what the outcome would be going in -- unlike in Olympic competitions. The only question in this match was how many points Dallas Academy would lose by. Link to comment
ShovelStrokeEd Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I managed to choke down 3 pages of this, won't go further. Basketball - the team in possession of the ball endeavors to place the ball in their basket. The team not in possession of the ball attempts to stop that, regain possession of the ball and put it in their basket. One team invariably does it better and more often than the other. Handshakes all around, or hugs. Doesn't matter who won or lost. The good part of b'ball is playing the game. Link to comment
SeanC Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Well, no matter which way you look at this, here is a pic of the "losers". They look like winners to me. Hmmm... someone should tell them a basketball team consists of five players. Link to comment
Lawman Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 [] someone should tell them a basketball team consists of five players. That could be part of the problem.. Turns out the coach seems to be the big loser... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6230045.html Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.