Sorry son, but 100-0 is one of the big reasons this is being talked about. That's not a blowout, that's deliberate humiliation. It's completely unsportsmanlike.
Sorry son, but 100-0 is one of the big reasons this is being talked about. That's not a blowout, that's deliberate humiliation. It's completely unsportsmanlike.
Of a team that was made up of girls. Who have learning handicaps. In a 'Christian' league. Nope. Nothing 'sexy' at all for the news media. I can't even imagine what more needs to be said to see a non-championship girls' basketball game between two incredibly tiny schools make national news.
At what point does it go from being a fair, friendly competition to unsportsmanlike if the winning team wins by even a grossly huge margin whilst playing within the already agreed upon rules of competition? As bad as I feel for the girls who lost (having been in similar situations as I explained earlier), I feel worse for them becoming national laughingstocks and having their loss being used as some kind of cudgel against the coach and in favour of some sort of notion of 'fair play'.
Your condescension of my views doesn't do anything to make your own more correct by default.
Sorry son, but 100-0 is one of the big reasons this is being talked about. That's not a blowout, that's deliberate humiliation. It's completely unsportsmanlike.
What, exactly, is unsportsmanlike here? I'm not being sarcastic. I've read a lot of assumptions in this thread about intent and behavior from people who have heard nothing but 3rd and 4th hand accounts of the game.
Sportsmanship is about playing with 100% effort throughout the game while showing respect for the rules, the opponent, and one's self. Until I read a reliable account that accuses the winning team of being disrespectful (and scoring 100 points doesn't qualify), I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If the coach only has 8 players, it's not like he can just go to his "2nd and 3rd team" as some have suggested. Should the coach just go to the 4-corners offense at half time? Then the game becomes a waste of time for everyone. The good team doesn't get to practice its offense, the bad team doesn't get to practice its defense. To me, wasting someone's time is far more disrespectful than beating their ass.
The point of high school competition is to have fun and get better. If a game just becomes a set of passing drills up and down the court, neither of those things are happening. At that point everyone's better off getting on the bus and heading home.
I can't help feeling that a lot of the people who are making the 'it's their fault for sucking so bad' or 'how can you win too hard' types of comments have never really been involved in organised sports and are importing the attitudes they use in Unreal Tournament or World of Warcraft.
The concept of not running up the score is very well known and accepted among coaches. I saw a video of commentators on ESPN fuming about this story, pretty much calling anyone a jackass who thinks this kind of thing is okay.
If as a coach you're in a situation where your team is just totally pulverizing the opponent there are all kinds of things you can do:
- stop the full court press and drop back to a zone defense
- sub in your second string players
- have them run different plays, passing the ball around, before taking the shot
- ease back on defense, don't try and steal at every opportunity
- get your weaker players to take the shots to give them practice instead of your ace shooters
- let the other team shoot the ball and practice your rebounds and outlets
None of this stuff is "insulting the other team". It's good form and it's good sports.
Alright I'm not trying to justify the dude scoring 100 points, but I doubt he was running a full court press and stealing the ball every chance they got.
He didn't have a deep lineup so second string isn't exactly there, and let's say they passed the ball 6 times before shooting, they're still gonna score if they try to rebound. I think the real problem is that this match shouldn't have happened. If you put the top 5 from the lakers against a high school team, there isn't a lot they can do that isn't obvious (which I think is disrespectful) to make it competitive.
I can't help feeling that a lot of the people who are making the 'it's their fault for sucking so bad' or 'how can you win too hard' types of comments have never really been involved in organised sports and are importing the attitudes they use in Unreal Tournament or World of Warcraft.
The concept of not running up the score is very well known and accepted among coaches. I saw a video of commentators on ESPN fuming about this story, pretty much calling anyone a jackass who thinks this kind of thing is okay.
If as a coach you're in a situation where your team is just totally pulverizing the opponent there are all kinds of things you can do:
- stop the full court press and drop back to a zone defense
- sub in your second string players
- have them run different plays, passing the ball around, before taking the shot
- ease back on defense, don't try and steal at every opportunity
- get your weaker players to take the shots to give them practice instead of your ace shooters
- let the other team shoot the ball and practice your rebounds and outlets
None of this stuff is "insulting the other team". It's good form and it's good sports.
Did you miss the part where I personally experienced this kind of humiliation? Or where the fired coach actually suggested that he used many of the tactics you suggested? Try not to automatically assume that I'm a 'win-at-all-costs' type who doesn't think twice about humiliating my opponent on the way to victory. Strangely, not everybody is like that.
Perhaps what is really happening here is that many people are just assuming the fired coach was being a jackass. This must be true since his team won by so much, right?
Oh, and I imagine the ESPN folks fuming over this coach would probably also be the first to ignore Steve Spurrier when he'd run up the scores on obviously weaker teams just so UF could rank just a little bit higher in the BCS polls. I'd hardly take their word for anything.
The point of high school competition is to have fun and get better. If a game just becomes a set of passing drills up and down the court, neither of those things are happening. At that point everyone's better off getting on the bus and heading home.
Well, by the other coach's account it did become nothing but a set of drills...but only for one team.
Though yeah, knowing that they had only eight players does make subbing in less of an option.
None of this stuff is "insulting the other team". It's good form and it's good sports.
It seems to me like the point of high school sports in particular was either A) to learn and practice at the game, to have fun, or C) both. There was obviously D) to win as well, but these girls had locked that up in the first quarter. There comes a point where by continuing to pay your best (as jjbuck suggest) you're not really even giving the other team a chance to practice...every time you steal the ball from them, that's less passing or shooting they get to practice, for instance. Or, at best, you're allowing them to practice only one thing...how to not get the ball stolen, and how to stop the layup.
Which, on the one hand, is obviously something they needed to practice. On the other, the fact that they never managed to score suggests that it wasn't working, and suggests that nobody was having any fun trying. I could be wrong, obviously, but I doubt it.
Oh, and I imagine the ESPN folks fuming over this coach would probably also be the first to ignore Steve Spurrier when he'd run up the scores on obviously weaker teams just so UF could rank just a little bit higher in the BCS polls. I'd hardly take their word for anything.
Different argument, because those BCS polls have very real consequences so there is a very real incentive to run up the score other than dickery.
Alright I'm not trying to justify the dude scoring 100 points, but I doubt he was running a full court press and stealing the ball every chance they got.
I don't see how you get to 100 without trying to. I suppose it's possible, but the fact that the team stopped at exactly 100 suggests it was a goal, not something that "just happened."
I don't think NFL or college games are even close to relevant. If I coached the NFL I would run up the score at all times to every extent, because that's a league where you are paid to play. College maybe, but those are still students (even if they're on a full ride to attend) who will not probably play football for a living. It's different, high school athletics is about friends and learning self discipline and sportsmanship.
Sometimes unfortunate things happen, this is one of those times.
I don't think NFL or college games are even close to relevant. If I coached the NFL I would run up the score at all times to every extent, because that's a league where you are paid to play.
No you wouldn't, because that's a league where recruiting players if expensive as fuck and you don't want one of them to get hurt so you win by 35 instead of 28. You do everything you can to maintain a comfortable lead and run down the clock, and no more.
mcdermott on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I don't think NFL or college games are even close to relevant. If I coached the NFL I would run up the score at all times to every extent, because that's a league where you are paid to play.
No you wouldn't, because that's a league where recruiting players if expensive as fuck and you don't want one of them to get hurt so you win by 35 instead of 28. You do everything you can to maintain a comfortable lead and run down the clock, and no more.
again, running down the clock is less an option in basketball assuming they have a shot clock, which I think is fair as we had a shot clock in the little church league I played in when I was 7.
you have to either shoot or hand the ball to the other team.
I don't think NFL or college games are even close to relevant. If I coached the NFL I would run up the score at all times to every extent, because that's a league where you are paid to play.
No you wouldn't, because that's a league where recruiting players if expensive as fuck and you don't want one of them to get hurt so you win by 35 instead of 28. You do everything you can to maintain a comfortable lead and run down the clock, and no more.
again, running down the clock is less an option in basketball assuming they have a shot clock, which I think is fair as we had a shot clock in the little church league I played in when I was 7.
you have to either shoot or hand the ball to the other team.
Funny thing. The Shot Clock was invented to increase scoring and prevent teams from winning with scores like 8-5 by holding onto the ball and preventing the other team from winning or even touching the ball. Where do you draw the line?
None of this stuff is "insulting the other team". It's good form and it's good sports.
It seems to me like the point of high school sports in particular was either A) to learn and practice at the game, to have fun, or C) both. There was obviously D) to win as well, but these girls had locked that up in the first quarter. There comes a point where by continuing to pay your best (as jjbuck suggest) you're not really even giving the other team a chance to practice...every time you steal the ball from them, that's less passing or shooting they get to practice, for instance. Or, at best, you're allowing them to practice only one thing...how to not get the ball stolen, and how to stop the layup.
Which, on the one hand, is obviously something they needed to practice. On the other, the fact that they never managed to score suggests that it wasn't working, and suggests that nobody was having any fun trying. I could be wrong, obviously, but I doubt it.
Yeah.. I uh agree with all of that. I don't really understand why that's a response to my statement, which was about how changing up your game so as not to humiliate the other team and run up the score is not insulting.
This on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I don't think NFL or college games are even close to relevant. If I coached the NFL I would run up the score at all times to every extent, because that's a league where you are paid to play.
No you wouldn't, because that's a league where recruiting players if expensive as fuck and you don't want one of them to get hurt so you win by 35 instead of 28. You do everything you can to maintain a comfortable lead and run down the clock, and no more.
again, running down the clock is less an option in basketball assuming they have a shot clock, which I think is fair as we had a shot clock in the little church league I played in when I was 7.
you have to either shoot or hand the ball to the other team.
Funny thing. The Shot Clock was invented to increase scoring and prevent teams from winning with scores like 8-5 by holding onto the ball and preventing the other team from winning or even touching the ball. Where do you draw the line?
I'm not sure if I would consider this game to be out of line at all. I suppose this might be a personal thing, but I'd much, much rather lose 100-0 because my opponents played hard and continued trying to score than to lose 50-0 because they started screwing around halfway through. I always feel far more insulted when someone who obviously outclasses me (whether it be at Warcraft, swordfighting, or whatever) "takes it easy" or starts toying with me than when they simply play at their best. The implication that I'm not even worth their full efforts is worse than any defeat could be.
The only thing that seems dubious in this case is that the crowd (and perhaps team/coaches) seem to have been pushing for 100 points, as though that were some sort of magic number—that's just as insulting as putting on the kiddie gloves.
"They are really good," Civello said. "Their point guard is terrific. This is what it came down to in the second half: steal at half court and layup. Steal and layup. Steal and layup. It was a layup drill. They finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left." Covenant's point guard had 48 points.
So they were using exactly the same strategy over and over, and people are still complaining that they should have gone easier on the other team?
"They are really good," Civello said. "Their point guard is terrific. This is what it came down to in the second half: steal at half court and layup. Steal and layup. Steal and layup. It was a layup drill. They finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left." Covenant's point guard had 48 points.
So they were using exactly the same strategy over and over, and people are still complaining that they should have gone easier on the other team?
Well, when that strategy is "take the ball away from them and score" then yeah, maybe.
I'm not sure if I would consider this game to be out of line at all. I suppose this might be a personal thing, but I'd much, much rather lose 100-0 because my opponents played hard and continued trying to score than to lose 50-0 because they started screwing around halfway through. I always feel far more insulted when someone who obviously outclasses me (whether it be at Warcraft, swordfighting, or whatever) "takes it easy" or starts toying with me than when they simply play at their best. The implication that I'm not even worth their full efforts is worse than any defeat could be.
The only thing that seems dubious in this case is that the crowd (and perhaps team/coaches) seem to have been pushing for 100 points, as though that were some sort of magic number—that's just as insulting as putting on the kiddie gloves.
They did screw around.
They screwed around to get to exactly 100, as a little "fuck you".
So.
You know.
It's sort of something that is bad on multiple levels, as a thing to do. They're pretty jerky. Then again, no one really complained, so I assume that the losing team went "ugh diiicks" and the winning team was like "Dicks! " and they'll move on.
They screwed around to get to exactly 100, as a little "fuck you".
So.
You know.
Exactly. There's really no way to defend this...no matter which side of the "what should an obviously superior team do during a blow-out" argument you're on, they violated it. It's the worst of both worlds. Either they're dicks because they ran the score up to 100 in the first place, or they're dicks because after hitting triple digits they obviously decided to hang back and not score any more (thus "insulting" the other team).
If pushing as hard as possible is a virtue, why didn't they just run it to 112? Or 121?
Could all the people who are used to playing e-Chess and dueling in front of Ironforge and understand nothing about sports stop posting please?
Seriously. Like I said, if that "strategy" is to take the ball away from them and then score points with it, it's not like there's much the other team can do. If the Steelers played the West Bumfuck High's junior varsity team and went with a strategy of "keep passing downfield until you score a touchdown," and managed to run up a 280-0 score, would you say they "went easy on them?"
In sports, using the same strategy consistently is not "going easy" on somebody if A) the other team is not able, athletically, to stop it and that strategy runs up a huge score. This isn't chess or a video game, and simply knowing the proper response to a repeated strategy doesn't mean you can actually counter it.
Sorry son, but 100-0 is one of the big reasons this is being talked about. That's not a blowout, that's deliberate humiliation. It's completely unsportsmanlike.
Of a team that was made up of girls. Who have learning handicaps. In a 'Christian' league. Nope. Nothing 'sexy' at all for the news media. I can't even imagine what more needs to be said to see a non-championship girls' basketball game between two incredibly tiny schools make national news.
...It's not a Christian league. It's a statewide private school league (which only exists because the UIL doesn't really take private schools).
Here are the reasons it's gotten so much discussion: 1) 100-0 -- not the most common thing. 2) The school's apology -- that's pretty unusual. 3) Coach bitching about the apology and then getting fired -- oh boy, drama! ....And 4) "Oh, they were beating up on slow kids?" -- not exactly but the media will run with that anyway.
And all of those relate pretty directly into questions of sportsmanship, not "olol Christians" or "olol Texas" or "olol girls" or whatever.
Sorry son, but 100-0 is one of the big reasons this is being talked about. That's not a blowout, that's deliberate humiliation. It's completely unsportsmanlike.
Of a team that was made up of girls. Who have learning handicaps. In a 'Christian' league. Nope. Nothing 'sexy' at all for the news media. I can't even imagine what more needs to be said to see a non-championship girls' basketball game between two incredibly tiny schools make national news.
...It's not a Christian league. It's a statewide private school league (which only exists because the UIL doesn't really take private schools).
Here are the reasons it's gotten so much discussion: 1) 100-0 -- not the most common thing. 2) The school's apology -- that's pretty unusual. 3) Coach bitching about the apology and then getting fired -- oh boy, drama! ....And 4) "Oh, they were beating up on slow kids?" -- not exactly but the media will run with that anyway.
And all of those relate pretty directly into questions of sportsmanship, not "olol Christians" or "olol Texas" or "olol girls" or whatever.
Indeed, why in the fuck would the fact it's girls playing the sport be relevant at all
Maybe he was saying girls basketball is more popular than boys basketball so that's why the media was so quick to pick up on it
...
hahahaha
Medopine on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
I do not understand how playing the game is unsportsmanlike
In fact I do not even see how scoring the most points possible is unsportsmanlike
My understanding of unsportsmanlike conduct is you know spiking the ball and insulting the other players
Being way better than the other team should not be an offense worthy of punishment
I dunno, I think knowing that the other team could be kicking my ass even harder but they're not because they respect me! kind of sounds like BS.
I would rather lose to someone who is going balls out than lose to someone who is holding back, I suppose.
Read the first part of my post, #145.
Regardless of which side you fall on philosophically, they violated it. They ran the score to exactly 100, then stopped. Again, worst of both worlds.
Unless you want to try claiming they just happened to score exactly 100, and the reason for scoring so many less points in the fourth was that they ran out of steam. In which case I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.
EDIT: Basically, regardless of how you define sportsmanlike conduct in regards to running up a score, they acted unsporstmanlike. Regardless of whether you think running up the score or holding back makes them dicks, they were dicks.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks this qualifies as anything approaching "Sportsmanlike" has either never played organized sports or is a jackass.
Look at the quarter by quarter scores I posted awhile back. Exactly 100-0 didn't happen by accident.
I can even identify with those who think that playing as hard as you can is a virtue, out of respect for your opponents. But they didn't even do that. There's no way the team's actions are defensible, unless you're a dick.
"They are really good," Civello said. "Their point guard is terrific. This is what it came down to in the second half: steal at half court and layup. Steal and layup. Steal and layup. It was a layup drill. They finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left." Covenant's point guard had 48 points.
So they hit 100 with four minutes (or even two minutes, assuming he's exaggerating) left? Then didn't score anymore? Yeah.
Basically it sounds like they did exactly what some of the "GO HARD!" folks here say is so unforgivable, which is to turn the last portion of the game into nothing but a half-assed round of keepaway (because the other team still didn't score), only they waited until the score was a hundred to fucking zero to do it.
DICKS.
I mean fuck, if you're going to start fucking around with a few minutes left to go, why not at least let them score a basket or two? Because 100-4 doesn't sound as good in the locker room afterward when you're making fun of them?
Sorry son, but 100-0 is one of the big reasons this is being talked about. That's not a blowout, that's deliberate humiliation. It's completely unsportsmanlike.
Of a team that was made up of girls. Who have learning handicaps. In a 'Christian' league. Nope. Nothing 'sexy' at all for the news media. I can't even imagine what more needs to be said to see a non-championship girls' basketball game between two incredibly tiny schools make national news.
...It's not a Christian league. It's a statewide private school league (which only exists because the UIL doesn't really take private schools).
Here are the reasons it's gotten so much discussion: 1) 100-0 -- not the most common thing. 2) The school's apology -- that's pretty unusual. 3) Coach bitching about the apology and then getting fired -- oh boy, drama! ....And 4) "Oh, they were beating up on slow kids?" -- not exactly but the media will run with that anyway.
And all of those relate pretty directly into questions of sportsmanship, not "olol Christians" or "olol Texas" or "olol girls" or whatever.
Indeed, why in the fuck would the fact it's girls playing the sport be relevant at all
Well, why didn't the 100-0 football game spark this level of outrage, if gender is irrelevant to media coverage? Because the media likes to portray women as victims, and the public's outrage-0-meter gets turned to 11 any time something bad happens to young women.
I didn't even notice it was a girl's basketball game until like halfway through the thread. So it certainly doesn't affect my opinion at all. I can agree that perhaps it would affect the media attention, but I doubt it...girls sports in high school, particularly those also played by boys, are largely ignored. Absent the apololgy/firing/etc. this would never have gotten past the local media.
EDIT: Also the issue of why this is receiving media coverage is irrelevant as to whether the winning team were dicks or not.
well what if they had stopped at 50?
Depending on which side of the philosophical argument you fall on, they may have been more or less dickish. Or equally so. But probably less or equal.
Playing precisely to triple digits then turning it into a Globetrotters game, though, is probably the absolute peak of dickiosity independent of standpoint. It's like the Holy Grail of being a jackass.
I didn't even notice it was a girl's basketball game until like halfway through the thread. So it certainly doesn't affect my opinion at all. I can agree that perhaps it would affect the media attention, but I doubt it...girls sports in high school, particularly those also played by boys, are largely ignored. Absent the apololgy/firing/etc. this would never have gotten past the local media.
well what if they had stopped at 50?
Depending on which side of the philosophical argument you fall on, they may have been more or less dickish. Or equally so. But probably less or equal.
Playing precisely to triple digits then turning it into a Globetrotters game, though, is probably the absolute peak of dickiosity independent of standpoint. It's like the Holy Grail of being a jackass.
It's like pulling the Flying V in a hockey game your already winning.
Posts
Of a team that was made up of girls. Who have learning handicaps. In a 'Christian' league. Nope. Nothing 'sexy' at all for the news media. I can't even imagine what more needs to be said to see a non-championship girls' basketball game between two incredibly tiny schools make national news.
At what point does it go from being a fair, friendly competition to unsportsmanlike if the winning team wins by even a grossly huge margin whilst playing within the already agreed upon rules of competition? As bad as I feel for the girls who lost (having been in similar situations as I explained earlier), I feel worse for them becoming national laughingstocks and having their loss being used as some kind of cudgel against the coach and in favour of some sort of notion of 'fair play'.
Your condescension of my views doesn't do anything to make your own more correct by default.
What, exactly, is unsportsmanlike here? I'm not being sarcastic. I've read a lot of assumptions in this thread about intent and behavior from people who have heard nothing but 3rd and 4th hand accounts of the game.
Sportsmanship is about playing with 100% effort throughout the game while showing respect for the rules, the opponent, and one's self. Until I read a reliable account that accuses the winning team of being disrespectful (and scoring 100 points doesn't qualify), I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If the coach only has 8 players, it's not like he can just go to his "2nd and 3rd team" as some have suggested. Should the coach just go to the 4-corners offense at half time? Then the game becomes a waste of time for everyone. The good team doesn't get to practice its offense, the bad team doesn't get to practice its defense. To me, wasting someone's time is far more disrespectful than beating their ass.
The point of high school competition is to have fun and get better. If a game just becomes a set of passing drills up and down the court, neither of those things are happening. At that point everyone's better off getting on the bus and heading home.
The concept of not running up the score is very well known and accepted among coaches. I saw a video of commentators on ESPN fuming about this story, pretty much calling anyone a jackass who thinks this kind of thing is okay.
If as a coach you're in a situation where your team is just totally pulverizing the opponent there are all kinds of things you can do:
- stop the full court press and drop back to a zone defense
- sub in your second string players
- have them run different plays, passing the ball around, before taking the shot
- ease back on defense, don't try and steal at every opportunity
- get your weaker players to take the shots to give them practice instead of your ace shooters
- let the other team shoot the ball and practice your rebounds and outlets
None of this stuff is "insulting the other team". It's good form and it's good sports.
He didn't have a deep lineup so second string isn't exactly there, and let's say they passed the ball 6 times before shooting, they're still gonna score if they try to rebound. I think the real problem is that this match shouldn't have happened. If you put the top 5 from the lakers against a high school team, there isn't a lot they can do that isn't obvious (which I think is disrespectful) to make it competitive.
Did you miss the part where I personally experienced this kind of humiliation? Or where the fired coach actually suggested that he used many of the tactics you suggested? Try not to automatically assume that I'm a 'win-at-all-costs' type who doesn't think twice about humiliating my opponent on the way to victory. Strangely, not everybody is like that.
Perhaps what is really happening here is that many people are just assuming the fired coach was being a jackass. This must be true since his team won by so much, right?
Oh, and I imagine the ESPN folks fuming over this coach would probably also be the first to ignore Steve Spurrier when he'd run up the scores on obviously weaker teams just so UF could rank just a little bit higher in the BCS polls. I'd hardly take their word for anything.
Well, by the other coach's account it did become nothing but a set of drills...but only for one team.
Though yeah, knowing that they had only eight players does make subbing in less of an option.
It seems to me like the point of high school sports in particular was either A) to learn and practice at the game,
Which, on the one hand, is obviously something they needed to practice. On the other, the fact that they never managed to score suggests that it wasn't working, and suggests that nobody was having any fun trying. I could be wrong, obviously, but I doubt it.
Different argument, because those BCS polls have very real consequences so there is a very real incentive to run up the score other than dickery.
I don't see how you get to 100 without trying to. I suppose it's possible, but the fact that the team stopped at exactly 100 suggests it was a goal, not something that "just happened."
Sometimes unfortunate things happen, this is one of those times.
No you wouldn't, because that's a league where recruiting players if expensive as fuck and you don't want one of them to get hurt so you win by 35 instead of 28. You do everything you can to maintain a comfortable lead and run down the clock, and no more.
again, running down the clock is less an option in basketball assuming they have a shot clock, which I think is fair as we had a shot clock in the little church league I played in when I was 7.
you have to either shoot or hand the ball to the other team.
Funny thing. The Shot Clock was invented to increase scoring and prevent teams from winning with scores like 8-5 by holding onto the ball and preventing the other team from winning or even touching the ball. Where do you draw the line?
Yeah.. I uh agree with all of that. I don't really understand why that's a response to my statement, which was about how changing up your game so as not to humiliate the other team and run up the score is not insulting.
I don't draw the line.
The only thing that seems dubious in this case is that the crowd (and perhaps team/coaches) seem to have been pushing for 100 points, as though that were some sort of magic number—that's just as insulting as putting on the kiddie gloves.
So they were using exactly the same strategy over and over, and people are still complaining that they should have gone easier on the other team?
Well, when that strategy is "take the ball away from them and score" then yeah, maybe.
Could all the people who are used to playing e-Chess and dueling in front of Ironforge and understand nothing about sports stop posting please?
They did screw around.
They screwed around to get to exactly 100, as a little "fuck you".
So.
You know.
It's sort of something that is bad on multiple levels, as a thing to do. They're pretty jerky. Then again, no one really complained, so I assume that the losing team went "ugh diiicks" and the winning team was like "Dicks!
Exactly. There's really no way to defend this...no matter which side of the "what should an obviously superior team do during a blow-out" argument you're on, they violated it. It's the worst of both worlds. Either they're dicks because they ran the score up to 100 in the first place, or they're dicks because after hitting triple digits they obviously decided to hang back and not score any more (thus "insulting" the other team).
If pushing as hard as possible is a virtue, why didn't they just run it to 112? Or 121?
Seriously. Like I said, if that "strategy" is to take the ball away from them and then score points with it, it's not like there's much the other team can do. If the Steelers played the West Bumfuck High's junior varsity team and went with a strategy of "keep passing downfield until you score a touchdown," and managed to run up a 280-0 score, would you say they "went easy on them?"
In sports, using the same strategy consistently is not "going easy" on somebody if A) the other team is not able, athletically, to stop it and
...It's not a Christian league. It's a statewide private school league (which only exists because the UIL doesn't really take private schools).
Here are the reasons it's gotten so much discussion: 1) 100-0 -- not the most common thing. 2) The school's apology -- that's pretty unusual. 3) Coach bitching about the apology and then getting fired -- oh boy, drama! ....And 4) "Oh, they were beating up on slow kids?" -- not exactly but the media will run with that anyway.
And all of those relate pretty directly into questions of sportsmanship, not "olol Christians" or "olol Texas" or "olol girls" or whatever.
Indeed, why in the fuck would the fact it's girls playing the sport be relevant at all
Maybe he was saying girls basketball is more popular than boys basketball so that's why the media was so quick to pick up on it
...
hahahaha
In fact I do not even see how scoring the most points possible is unsportsmanlike
My understanding of unsportsmanlike conduct is you know spiking the ball and insulting the other players
Being way better than the other team should not be an offense worthy of punishment
Sportsmanship involves respect for your opponent
Running up the score to a deliberately high number just because you can is disrespectful
You can play respectfully in a blowout game without "punishing" yourself by deliberately losing, or something
I would rather lose to someone who is going balls out than lose to someone who is holding back, I suppose.
Read the first part of my post, #145.
Regardless of which side you fall on philosophically, they violated it. They ran the score to exactly 100, then stopped. Again, worst of both worlds.
Unless you want to try claiming they just happened to score exactly 100, and the reason for scoring so many less points in the fourth was that they ran out of steam. In which case I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.
EDIT: Basically, regardless of how you define sportsmanlike conduct in regards to running up a score, they acted unsporstmanlike. Regardless of whether you think running up the score or holding back makes them dicks, they were dicks.
Look at the quarter by quarter scores I posted awhile back. Exactly 100-0 didn't happen by accident.
I can even identify with those who think that playing as hard as you can is a virtue, out of respect for your opponents. But they didn't even do that. There's no way the team's actions are defensible, unless you're a dick.
So they hit 100 with four minutes (or even two minutes, assuming he's exaggerating) left? Then didn't score anymore? Yeah.
Basically it sounds like they did exactly what some of the "GO HARD!" folks here say is so unforgivable, which is to turn the last portion of the game into nothing but a half-assed round of keepaway (because the other team still didn't score), only they waited until the score was a hundred to fucking zero to do it.
DICKS.
I mean fuck, if you're going to start fucking around with a few minutes left to go, why not at least let them score a basket or two? Because 100-4 doesn't sound as good in the locker room afterward when you're making fun of them?
Well, why didn't the 100-0 football game spark this level of outrage, if gender is irrelevant to media coverage? Because the media likes to portray women as victims, and the public's outrage-0-meter gets turned to 11 any time something bad happens to young women.
Mostly I thought no one gave a shit about girls basketball
EDIT: Also the issue of why this is receiving media coverage is irrelevant as to whether the winning team were dicks or not.
Depending on which side of the philosophical argument you fall on, they may have been more or less dickish. Or equally so. But probably less or equal.
Playing precisely to triple digits then turning it into a Globetrotters game, though, is probably the absolute peak of dickiosity independent of standpoint. It's like the Holy Grail of being a jackass.
It's like pulling the Flying V in a hockey game your already winning.
It's like spitting on the other team.
I could go on.
Reactions probably would have been about the same. A lot of the outrage seems to be the nice roundness of 100, which strikes me as a little silly.
But yeah, I can agree they shouldn't have let up at an even 100 if that was the plan. Should have been 113-0.