VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
I don't know. I don't think it's that bad that they stopped at 100 in and of itself.
I mean, they start the game playing hard obviously. if you're saying stopping at any point and slowing down is wrong, then I disagree. if you're saying stopping at a particular point is acceptable, then you're really just arguing when and can't find this as wrong as you're acting like.
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.
The outrage at the "roundness" of 100 isn't silly if you look at the scoring per quarter and read the other coach's quote. They ran it to exactly 100 and then fucked off until the clock ran out (for several minutes by the opposing coach's statement)...so really 100 was a big "fuck you" to the other team.
If they had run it to like 127-0 I'd still consider it a bit dickish, but probably not as much. I think 100-0 to me is worse just because it's not even internally consistent.
If you're going to fuck off at any point in the game, thus violating the "play the best you can" philosophy, then at that point you should at least try to let the other team score. 50-6, 100-3, or 127-5 would actually look better to me than 100-0.
I don't know. I don't think it's that bad that they stopped at 100 in and of itself.
I mean, they start the game playing hard obviously. if you're saying stopping at any point and slowing down is wrong, then I disagree. if you're saying stopping at a particular point is acceptable, then you're really just arguing when and can't find this as wrong as you're acting like.
No, I absolutely can find it just as wrong as I'm acting like. And this isn't about "stopping and slowing down," it's about hitting a round target score then fucking off to rub it in the other team's face (or showboat for the crowd). Had they stopped at 67-0 (or, more likely, slowed down after the first quarter to get it to 67-0 or 87-0 or whatever over the course of the game) that would be internally consistent with at least somebody's definition (it could well be theirs) of sportsmanship. Had they played it to even 103-0, same thing.
They stopped it at 100-0 because they probably thought it was funny. That makes them assholes.
EDIT: @jfj - Also 91-11 is a lot different than 100-0. Hell, 111-11 is a lot different than 100-0.
It's not about getting to a certain number and then stopping. It's about how you're playing the game. The ESPN guys had a caller say something which I think was putting it well: "You can't control how good the other team is, but as a coach you can control the tempo of the game."
According to the fired coach, he realized in the first few minutes of the game that the teams were lopsided. He may have pulled back his full-court press (news accounts conflict on that), however according to news reports he was having his girls steal the ball as soon as the other team crossed half-court. I read in one of the articles that the losing team was only able to get 7 or 8 shots off the entire game.
So it's not about "What number should they have stopped at", it's about how the coach should have turned the tempo of the game way down. And also, maybe let the other team shoot the ball once in a while.
This on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
so we know they stopped at 100, and you're assuming it's to laugh at the other team
if they stopped at 130 you'd assume it was because they were being sportsmanlike.
It's not about getting to a certain number and then stopping. It's about how you're playing the game. The ESPN guys had a caller say something which I think was putting it well: "You can't control how good the other team is, but as a coach you can control the tempo of the game."
According to the fired coach, he realized in the first few minutes of the game that the teams were lopsided. He may have pulled back his full-court press (news accounts conflict on that), however according to news reports he was having his girls steal the ball as soon as the other team crossed half-court. I read in one of the articles that the losing team was only able to get 7 or 8 shots off the entire game.
So it's not about "What number should they have stopped at", it's about how the coach should have turned the tempo of the game way down. And also, maybe let the other team shoot the ball once in a while.
I'm fine with this, I'm specifically talking about the other argument. I'm not necessarily saying it was a sportsmanlike game, certainly some reports sound like it very much wasn't.
so we know they stopped at 100, and you're assuming it's to laugh at the other team
if they stopped at 130 you'd assume it was because they were being sportsmanlike.
I think that makes absolutely no sense.
No, if they stopped at 130 I'd suggest they may have been being unsporstmanlike by my definition regarding a game of this type...but I'd assume this is just the score they wound up with based on the comparative skill of the teams.
Stopping at exactly 100 with several minutes left (EDIT: and yeah, like Medo said, with an obvious shift in tempo in the last quarter to hit exactly that number) makes them unsporstmanlike by any fucking definition regarding such a situation.
One is arguable, but I'm willing to admit that there may be an opposing viewpoint. The other is absolutely indefensible unless you're a gigantic asshole.
Is there something you're not getting? Like, this seems pretty obvious can clear, I don't understand how you're missing it.
EDIT: Basically the coach didn't bother to control the tempo of the game, which he was quite obviously able to do, until they had gotten to exactly 100-0. I'm not thinking of a single explanation for that that doesn't make him a gigantic cockbag.
so we know they stopped at 100, and you're assuming it's to laugh at the other team
if they stopped at 130 you'd assume it was because they were being sportsmanlike.
I think that makes absolutely no sense.
Well according to the dallas article, the crowd and assistant coach were pushing for 100. And in many reports the coach of the 0 team mentioned that the other team only backed off once they hit 100.
I don't know that the 100-0 was specifically to spit in the other team's eye so much as it was a "look how awesome we are" and "I'll be able to tell people about this score for a long time" sort of thing. Showing off in a completely unsportsmanlike way to be sure.
And I think the argument that it would be 'sportsmanlike' to just go for as many points as possible is mainly to appease the people who don't understand sports and think high school basketball is like Goldeneye, and find a point that all parties should be able to agree on. It seems to me the things your faulting in his argument are mostly products of that contrivance.
Personally I think firing the coach is out of line. He trained these girls, and yeah their record is not the best. However they win a game by 100-0, how do you think they felt about that? After they themselves experienced a similar loss in the past. The response is their school apologizes for their victory. Fuck I would be pissed if i went out, played a game and was told "oh I am sorry you are to good, you should have given them a chance." No one gave these girls an apology when they lost by 80 points. They sucked it up, and tried harder. If I was their coach I would have called the apology bullshit. The last thing he wants is his players to feel bad for playing that game.
It is a sport, you get better by training, practice, and playing the game. Playing people better than you is a wonderful teaching experience. I would consider it insulting to lay off and not play their hardest. Yes they are much better than the other team, but you play the game to the best of your ability.
I can well imagine the crowd wanting a 100 point game. I can imagine the coach deciding that would be a good place to just run down the clock and end this. I disagree with not playing their hardest until the end. Sports are about competition, some people win, some people lose. This idea that seems to have sprung up about not beating your opponents to badly, let them have some points, whatever is bullshit in my opinion.
If you cannot handle losing to a better team, you shouldn't be on the field.
so we know they stopped at 100, and you're assuming it's to laugh at the other team
if they stopped at 130 you'd assume it was because they were being sportsmanlike.
I think that makes absolutely no sense.
No, if they stopped at 130 I'd suggest they may have been being unsporstmanlike by my definition regarding a game of this type...but I'd assume this is just the score they wound up with based on the comparative skill of the teams.
Stopping at exactly 100 with several minutes left (EDIT: and yeah, like Medo said, with an obvious shift in tempo in the last quarter to hit exactly that number) makes them unsporstmanlike by any fucking definition regarding such a situation.
One is arguable, but I'm willing to admit that there may be an opposing viewpoint. The other is absolutely indefensible unless you're a gigantic asshole.
Is there something you're not getting? Like, this seems pretty obvious can clear, I don't understand how you're missing it.
EDIT: Basically the coach didn't bother to control the tempo of the game, which he was quite obviously able to do, until they had gotten to exactly 100-0. I'm not thinking of a single explanation for that that doesn't make him a gigantic cockbag.
I just don't see a difference between stopping at this number and stopping at that number. that's what I'm not getting. sorry, the number 100 doesn't scream asshole to me more than any other number in that area.
And I think the argument that it would be 'sportsmanlike' to just go for as many points as possible is mainly to appease the people who don't understand sports and think high school basketball is like Goldeneye, and find a point that all parties should be able to agree on. It seems to me the things your faulting in his argument are mostly products of that contrivance.
Actually, I do know people that played sports or "know" about them and agree with this position (that you should always play your best out of respect to the other team).
It's not an absurd position.
I know more that don't, but we're not exactly talking about a large sample. I'm willing to accept that it's a controversial point, particularly just for the sake of moving the discussion along.
It's irrelevant, though, because they didn't do that.
I can imagine the coach deciding that would be a good place to just run down the clock and end this.
Good place for who? Him? His team? The crowd? I can guarantee that the other team didn't feel any better about a 100-0 loss with a four-minute game of keepaway at the end than they would have about a 117-0 loss.
I don't know that the 100-0 was specifically to spit in the other team's eye so much as it was a "look how awesome we are" and "I'll be able to tell people about this score for a long time" sort of thing. Showing off in a completely unsportsmanlike way to be sure.
True, they may not have been actively intending to insult the other team. But getting an exactly 100-0 score so you can "tell people about it for a long time" while ignoring that there's another team involved is pretty dickish...this isn't Donkey Kong. Play your best, or don't, but don't stop at a score that "looks" good then waste the other team's time.
having the ball stolen from you at every opportunity doesn't give you a lot of time to practice
Yeah, I mentioned this earlier. They got to practice "don't get the ball stolen," and "block the layup." For an entire game. Super. I'm sure they got much better that evening.
I just don't see a difference between stopping at this number and stopping at that number. that's what I'm not getting. sorry, the number 100 doesn't scream asshole to me more than any other number in that area.
I get every other bit of it, and I agree with it.
Oh, then I think we're (mostly) in agreement. Stopping at any number kind of makes you a cock. Controlling the tempo of the game to keep the score lower over time would be the appropriate method of score control.
Had he stopped it at 50-0 in the first or second quarter that would have been a gigantic dick move too.
Had he controlled the tempo of the game to keep the score closer to 50-0, then stopped at 50-0 with a couple minutes left, I might suggest that this was less dickish, since 50-0 is a marginally less absurd result than 100-0. Still a little dickish, though. But we're talking about degrees of dickery, here, not binary values.
Really, though, the proper response in a high school setting would have been to slow his players down to reduce the score after the first quarter, and maybe consider telling them to steal the ball less to give the other team a chance to get more shots off (and practice more skills). Having the ball stolen at half court every time teaches them very little. We get it. They're bad at that.
But again, that's assuming that this is part of the point of high school sports. And again, I can understand that this is a controversial position.
Basically you have to work to engineer a 100-0 victory. Like, the team actually had to put some effort into running up the score the first three quarters so they could comfortably hit that number in the fourth then stop. 50-0 may well be a pity stop, but 100-0 was for the winning team's benefit...not the losing team's.
Well, getting whipped repeatedly before hadn't really done the trick. A pressbreaker isn't all that difficult to run, you don't even have to dribble the ball.
Well, getting whipped repeatedly before hadn't really done the trick. A pressbreaker isn't all that difficult to run, you don't even have to dribble the ball.
Then it sounds like perhaps both teams needed a new coach, huh?
Actually, I do know people that played sports or "know" about them and agree with this position (that you should always play your best out of respect to the other team).
It's not an absurd position.
I know more that don't, but we're not exactly talking about a large sample. I'm willing to accept that it's a controversial point, particularly just for the sake of moving the discussion along.
Well, it's a controversial point here on the forum because concepts like "Don't take it easy on me, that's insulting" "Play your hardest to the end" etc, all sound great in theory and I can understand why people who haven't been involved in youth sports would take those positions. But when you're sitting in the bleachers of a kids' basketball game watching one team just mercilessly pound the other team into the ground relentlessly for four quarters it's just a completely different thing.
I totally get your point which is that in the case of this team the coach was a dick no matter how you look at it. It's a great point and you're right.
But I think it's sugarcoating it a bit to pretend that advocating running up the score is a defensible position. Yeah there will be a few random cock coaches out there who will think that's a fine thing to do but I think you'd find that the great majority of them will tell you it's discraceful.
Actually, I do know people that played sports or "know" about them and agree with this position (that you should always play your best out of respect to the other team).
It's not an absurd position.
I know more that don't, but we're not exactly talking about a large sample. I'm willing to accept that it's a controversial point, particularly just for the sake of moving the discussion along.
Well, it's a controversial point here on the forum because concepts like "Don't take it easy on me, that's insulting" "Play your hardest to the end" etc, all sound great in theory and I can understand why people who haven't been involved in youth sports would take those positions. But when you're sitting in the bleachers of a kids' basketball game watching one team just mercilessly pound the other team into the ground relentlessly for four quarters it's just a completely different thing.
I totally get your point which is that in the case of this team the coach was a dick no matter how you look at it. It's a great point and you're right.
But I think it's sugarcoating it a bit to pretend that advocating running up the score is a defensible position. Yeah there will be a few random cock coaches out there who will think that's a fine thing to do but I think you'd find that the great majority of them will tell you it's discraceful.
Can we cut out the bullshit about people not knowing sports from WoW or whatever? I played plenty of sports growing up and have been on either side of blowouts. SOmetimes it happens. Life carries on. I am still glad other teams didn't pull their punches.
If we are to believe the coach and he dropped back and didn't press hard, then it's okay. You can't intentionally suck because people telegraph it like all hell and it pisses the other team off. What you do is you don't play as 'hard' though, ie use your second string players more, let the other guys shoot, empty the bench (on both sides). I remember the Nichols state coach being interviewed before a game against Nebraska, and he told the local news "I don't care what happens, everyone is getting a chance to play in this game for the experience".
If the coach had them playing hard to the end, he's a douche for running up the score. Because when you've beaten a team, you don't need to beat them even harder. And not even counting sportsmanship, you're risking injury and just wasting energy by playing hard until the end.
Can we cut out the bullshit about people not knowing sports from WoW or whatever? I played plenty of sports growing up and have been on either side of blowouts. SOmetimes it happens. Life carries on. I am still glad other teams didn't pull their punches.
Yeah like they say, all generalizations are false. I don't think my characterization is wrong for the most part though. Either about people taking their e-competition mentality and applying it to this scenario or about the notion that running up the score is a pretty widely frowned upon thing in youth sports. At least where I come from, and specifically in basketball, it seems to be. From following the reaction to this story I don't think it's peculiar to my locality.
Can we cut out the bullshit about people not knowing sports from WoW or whatever? I played plenty of sports growing up and have been on either side of blowouts. SOmetimes it happens. Life carries on. I am still glad other teams didn't pull their punches.
Yeah like they say, all generalizations are false. I don't think my characterization is wrong for the most part though. Either about people taking their e-competition mentality and applying it to this scenario or about the notion that running up the score is a pretty widely frowned upon thing in youth sports. At least where I come from, and specifically in basketball, it seems to be. From following the reaction to this story I don't think it's peculiar to my locality.
I think high school sports are a gray area between "youth" sports and the more competitive levels (college, pro) where people kind of go both ways.
Yeah well anyways. I think this is pretty played out, I was having more fun when I was biting and sarcastic as opposed to preachy and lectury which is sort of what happened there toward the end.
the coverage they gave this on ESPN was kinda hilarious. Showed clips of the girls missing baskets by 3ft and completely missing layups and what not. I get the feeling they weren't trying to be dicks about the coverage but that's just really what happened.
Really, the coach is in a no-win kind of situation. Blowing out the other team makes him a dick. Having his players not try as hard makes him a dick. There's no way for him team to look good here.
It's also funny to me that one of the main arguments is the fact that they scored 100 points exactly. This apparently makes them mega-cocks, because they totally did it on purpose. This in spite of no evidence that they did it on purpose - everything I'm reading makes it sound like they started strong, went to a defensive formation, and slowly crept up on 100. They probably stopped there because there were only a few minutes left, and going over 100 would have looked REALLY bad.
Basically, anyone who thinks this is a travesty should petition to have a mercy rule implemented, where the game ends after a 50 point lead or something.
I heard that the reason they ran up the score might have been because points scored matter more than wins in terms of attracting scouts, but I'm not sure how true that might be.
Anyway, I wonder if Dallas Academy's basketball team only exists for the slim chance that they might experience a once in a lifetime winning season which will then serve as the basis for an inspiring movie.
Anyway, I wonder if Dallas Academy's basketball team only exists for the slim chance that they might experience a once in a lifetime winning season which will then serve as the basis for an inspiring movie.
It exists because it's an outlet. If it was closed I bet you that parents would go into a shitfest claiming discrimination of some sort.
I do feel bad about the coach of the other team. This whole thing is stupid.
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.
It's like spitting on the other team.
I could go on.
So what was the purpose of the game?
I'll agree that the matchup probably should never have occurred, but how are we holding coaches and players responsible for being better than the other team? What sort of values are reflected when a coach is fired for his team being so much better than the opposition, in a competitive sport? I played Baseball for years and years in my youth and I can remember games where my team beat the snot out of our opponents and kept going as hard as we could to hit the mercy rule every inning. We turned the game into an exercise, trying to place our hits in specific places and attempting to take a triple on something that would usually be a double.
Really, if they were in the workplace as two teams competing to finish the same project we'd never see this reaction. If they were professional or collegiate teams we would never see this problem.
One team was much better than the other and both teams were aware of this. The purpose of the game is to score baskets. Since scoring baskets was too easy, they challenged themselves in a different way by attempting to hit a certain score.
I think that someone needs to just move on. This isn't worth someone's livelihood. The man was hired to coach the team and coax high performance from players. Now he doesn't have a job and he and his family will suffer because of it. Looks like I shouldn't try to outshine my co-workers, I may offend my clients.
I wouldn't have any issue if they hadn't fired the coach. Taking away a man's livelihood because of a media circus is what is really un-christlike.
1. The coach of the winning team should have had a discussion at halftime or even the first quarter break with the coach of the other team about what they should do.
2. The coach of the winning team should have told his point guard to stop stealing the ball. And if she didn't stop, he should have put her on the bench for the rest of the game. There is a difference between embarrassing the other team by intentionally sucking and actively trying to disrupt a team that hasn't even scored. It's the same reason you don't steal bases or stretch extra base hits in baseball when you're up by 10 runs.
I'd be interested to see how many shots the losing team got off, if any.
even if you're playing competitively, when you know you're loads better than the other team and you've already won, there's just no need to utterly crush your opponents. there's no need to embarrass them. what's the point in that? especially considering that these girls were there to have the experience of teamwork and sport that being on a basketball team would provide.
Encouraging poor play from your team just doesn't seem like the right call to me. You do all this practicing attempting to run things correctly, shoot properly, and yes, steal the ball. Then if you execute it too well, you are just supposed the throw all that out of the window and start again?
I will agree that there should be a mercy rule instituted, though losing by the mercy rule always cut a little deeper than just getting my ass kicked, for me at least.
Encouraging poor play from your team just doesn't seem like the right call to me. You do all this practicing attempting to run things correctly, shoot properly, and yes, steal the ball. Then if you execute it too well, you are just supposed the throw all that out of the window and start again?
I will agree that there should be a mercy rule instituted, though losing by the mercy rule always cut a little deeper than just getting my ass kicked, for me at least.
Have we ever figured out who was telling the truth with the full-court press thing?
Because it's one thing to let your kids play and completely another to put them in a press against an opponent who seems to have trouble with the most basic aspects of the game.
1. The coach of the winning team should have had a discussion at halftime or even the first quarter break with the coach of the other team about what they should do.
2. The coach of the winning team should have told his point guard to stop stealing the ball. And if she didn't stop, he should have put her on the bench for the rest of the game. There is a difference between embarrassing the other team by intentionally sucking and actively trying to disrupt a team that hasn't even scored. It's the same reason you don't steal bases or stretch extra base hits in baseball when you're up by 10 runs.
I'd be interested to see how many shots the losing team got off, if any.
Somebody mentioned that the losing team only got off like less than ten shots, but I don't know where the info came from.
It's also funny to me that one of the main arguments is the fact that they scored 100 points exactly. This apparently makes them mega-cocks, because they totally did it on purpose. This in spite of no evidence that they did it on purpose - everything I'm reading makes it sound like they started strong, went to a defensive formation, and slowly crept up on 100. They probably stopped there because there were only a few minutes left, and going over 100 would have looked REALLY bad.
Sure.
If by "started strong" you mean "played strong for three entire quarters." They scored more in the third than they had in the second, and not much less than they had in the first (something like 34 25 29 12, IIRC). And this "defensive formation" you speak of, at least by the account the opposing coach gave, consisted of "take the ball away from the other girl at half court and score."
Add in the accounts that the crowd was specifically pushing for 100, and it doesn't sound like they stopped there because going further would have looked worse. They stopped there because they got what they wanted.
Encouraging poor play from your team just doesn't seem like the right call to me. You do all this practicing attempting to run things correctly, shoot properly, and yes, steal the ball. Then if you execute it too well, you are just supposed the throw all that out of the window and start again?
I will agree that there should be a mercy rule instituted, though losing by the mercy rule always cut a little deeper than just getting my ass kicked, for me at least.
Not stealing the ball from the other team at half court isn't poor play. There is no one right way to play basketball, pulling back into a zone defense and guarding them at the three point line is a pretty standard way to play.
Encouraging poor play from your team just doesn't seem like the right call to me. You do all this practicing attempting to run things correctly, shoot properly, and yes, steal the ball. Then if you execute it too well, you are just supposed the throw all that out of the window and start again?
I will agree that there should be a mercy rule instituted, though losing by the mercy rule always cut a little deeper than just getting my ass kicked, for me at least.
Have we ever figured out who was telling the truth with the full-court press thing?
Because it's one thing to let your kids play and completely another to put them in a press against an opponent who seems to have trouble with the most basic aspects of the game.
The coach who wrote the editorial said he called it off after it was 25-0 or whatever. The other coach said they kept stealing the ball at half court, which also means they weren't pressing, so to me it seems like they were not running it entire game.
Also the coach of the losing team said that they "Kept the pressure on the whole game", which I think people are misinterpreting as "Kept the press on the whole game" instead of "Played hard the whole game".
Posts
I mean, they start the game playing hard obviously. if you're saying stopping at any point and slowing down is wrong, then I disagree. if you're saying stopping at a particular point is acceptable, then you're really just arguing when and can't find this as wrong as you're acting like.
#10 Yates (Houston, TX)
- - - - 91
* Austin (Houston, TX)
- - - - 11
A girls' game, 87 points.
#41 Nimitz (Houston, TX)
31 26 24 27 108
* Aldine (Houston, TX)
1 4 8 8 21
This is just from the past two weeks, and only the top 100 ranked teams (that's all maxpreps.com tracks).
The outrage at the "roundness" of 100 isn't silly if you look at the scoring per quarter and read the other coach's quote. They ran it to exactly 100 and then fucked off until the clock ran out (for several minutes by the opposing coach's statement)...so really 100 was a big "fuck you" to the other team.
If they had run it to like 127-0 I'd still consider it a bit dickish, but probably not as much. I think 100-0 to me is worse just because it's not even internally consistent.
If you're going to fuck off at any point in the game, thus violating the "play the best you can" philosophy, then at that point you should at least try to let the other team score. 50-6, 100-3, or 127-5 would actually look better to me than 100-0.
No, I absolutely can find it just as wrong as I'm acting like. And this isn't about "stopping and slowing down," it's about hitting a round target score then fucking off to rub it in the other team's face (or showboat for the crowd). Had they stopped at 67-0 (or, more likely, slowed down after the first quarter to get it to 67-0 or 87-0 or whatever over the course of the game) that would be internally consistent with at least somebody's definition (it could well be theirs) of sportsmanship. Had they played it to even 103-0, same thing.
They stopped it at 100-0 because they probably thought it was funny. That makes them assholes.
EDIT: @jfj - Also 91-11 is a lot different than 100-0. Hell, 111-11 is a lot different than 100-0.
According to the fired coach, he realized in the first few minutes of the game that the teams were lopsided. He may have pulled back his full-court press (news accounts conflict on that), however according to news reports he was having his girls steal the ball as soon as the other team crossed half-court. I read in one of the articles that the losing team was only able to get 7 or 8 shots off the entire game.
So it's not about "What number should they have stopped at", it's about how the coach should have turned the tempo of the game way down. And also, maybe let the other team shoot the ball once in a while.
if they stopped at 130 you'd assume it was because they were being sportsmanlike.
I think that makes absolutely no sense.
I'm fine with this, I'm specifically talking about the other argument. I'm not necessarily saying it was a sportsmanlike game, certainly some reports sound like it very much wasn't.
he's going by the number of points scored per quarter
No, if they stopped at 130 I'd suggest they may have been being unsporstmanlike by my definition regarding a game of this type...but I'd assume this is just the score they wound up with based on the comparative skill of the teams.
Stopping at exactly 100 with several minutes left (EDIT: and yeah, like Medo said, with an obvious shift in tempo in the last quarter to hit exactly that number) makes them unsporstmanlike by any fucking definition regarding such a situation.
One is arguable, but I'm willing to admit that there may be an opposing viewpoint. The other is absolutely indefensible unless you're a gigantic asshole.
Is there something you're not getting? Like, this seems pretty obvious can clear, I don't understand how you're missing it.
EDIT: Basically the coach didn't bother to control the tempo of the game, which he was quite obviously able to do, until they had gotten to exactly 100-0. I'm not thinking of a single explanation for that that doesn't make him a gigantic cockbag.
Well according to the dallas article, the crowd and assistant coach were pushing for 100. And in many reports the coach of the 0 team mentioned that the other team only backed off once they hit 100.
I don't know that the 100-0 was specifically to spit in the other team's eye so much as it was a "look how awesome we are" and "I'll be able to tell people about this score for a long time" sort of thing. Showing off in a completely unsportsmanlike way to be sure.
And I think the argument that it would be 'sportsmanlike' to just go for as many points as possible is mainly to appease the people who don't understand sports and think high school basketball is like Goldeneye, and find a point that all parties should be able to agree on. It seems to me the things your faulting in his argument are mostly products of that contrivance.
It is a sport, you get better by training, practice, and playing the game. Playing people better than you is a wonderful teaching experience. I would consider it insulting to lay off and not play their hardest. Yes they are much better than the other team, but you play the game to the best of your ability.
I can well imagine the crowd wanting a 100 point game. I can imagine the coach deciding that would be a good place to just run down the clock and end this. I disagree with not playing their hardest until the end. Sports are about competition, some people win, some people lose. This idea that seems to have sprung up about not beating your opponents to badly, let them have some points, whatever is bullshit in my opinion.
If you cannot handle losing to a better team, you shouldn't be on the field.
I just don't agree with your type of hardass attitude when we're talking about high school sports
And please remember, the losing team didn't complain to the media, the winning school's administration issued an apology
I just don't see a difference between stopping at this number and stopping at that number. that's what I'm not getting. sorry, the number 100 doesn't scream asshole to me more than any other number in that area.
I get every other bit of it, and I agree with it.
Actually, I do know people that played sports or "know" about them and agree with this position (that you should always play your best out of respect to the other team).
It's not an absurd position.
I know more that don't, but we're not exactly talking about a large sample. I'm willing to accept that it's a controversial point, particularly just for the sake of moving the discussion along.
It's irrelevant, though, because they didn't do that.
Good place for who? Him? His team? The crowd? I can guarantee that the other team didn't feel any better about a 100-0 loss with a four-minute game of keepaway at the end than they would have about a 117-0 loss.
True, they may not have been actively intending to insult the other team. But getting an exactly 100-0 score so you can "tell people about it for a long time" while ignoring that there's another team involved is pretty dickish...this isn't Donkey Kong. Play your best, or don't, but don't stop at a score that "looks" good then waste the other team's time.
Now they know the importance of working on their pressbreaker.
Yeah, I mentioned this earlier. They got to practice "don't get the ball stolen," and "block the layup." For an entire game. Super. I'm sure they got much better that evening.
Oh, then I think we're (mostly) in agreement. Stopping at any number kind of makes you a cock. Controlling the tempo of the game to keep the score lower over time would be the appropriate method of score control.
Had he stopped it at 50-0 in the first or second quarter that would have been a gigantic dick move too.
Had he controlled the tempo of the game to keep the score closer to 50-0, then stopped at 50-0 with a couple minutes left, I might suggest that this was less dickish, since 50-0 is a marginally less absurd result than 100-0. Still a little dickish, though. But we're talking about degrees of dickery, here, not binary values.
Really, though, the proper response in a high school setting would have been to slow his players down to reduce the score after the first quarter, and maybe consider telling them to steal the ball less to give the other team a chance to get more shots off (and practice more skills). Having the ball stolen at half court every time teaches them very little. We get it. They're bad at that.
But again, that's assuming that this is part of the point of high school sports. And again, I can understand that this is a controversial position.
Basically you have to work to engineer a 100-0 victory. Like, the team actually had to put some effort into running up the score the first three quarters so they could comfortably hit that number in the fourth then stop. 50-0 may well be a pity stop, but 100-0 was for the winning team's benefit...not the losing team's.
Ya think?
Then it sounds like perhaps both teams needed a new coach, huh?
Well, it's a controversial point here on the forum because concepts like "Don't take it easy on me, that's insulting" "Play your hardest to the end" etc, all sound great in theory and I can understand why people who haven't been involved in youth sports would take those positions. But when you're sitting in the bleachers of a kids' basketball game watching one team just mercilessly pound the other team into the ground relentlessly for four quarters it's just a completely different thing.
I totally get your point which is that in the case of this team the coach was a dick no matter how you look at it. It's a great point and you're right.
But I think it's sugarcoating it a bit to pretend that advocating running up the score is a defensible position. Yeah there will be a few random cock coaches out there who will think that's a fine thing to do but I think you'd find that the great majority of them will tell you it's discraceful.
Can we cut out the bullshit about people not knowing sports from WoW or whatever? I played plenty of sports growing up and have been on either side of blowouts. SOmetimes it happens. Life carries on. I am still glad other teams didn't pull their punches.
If we are to believe the coach and he dropped back and didn't press hard, then it's okay. You can't intentionally suck because people telegraph it like all hell and it pisses the other team off. What you do is you don't play as 'hard' though, ie use your second string players more, let the other guys shoot, empty the bench (on both sides). I remember the Nichols state coach being interviewed before a game against Nebraska, and he told the local news "I don't care what happens, everyone is getting a chance to play in this game for the experience".
If the coach had them playing hard to the end, he's a douche for running up the score. Because when you've beaten a team, you don't need to beat them even harder. And not even counting sportsmanship, you're risking injury and just wasting energy by playing hard until the end.
Yeah like they say, all generalizations are false. I don't think my characterization is wrong for the most part though. Either about people taking their e-competition mentality and applying it to this scenario or about the notion that running up the score is a pretty widely frowned upon thing in youth sports. At least where I come from, and specifically in basketball, it seems to be. From following the reaction to this story I don't think it's peculiar to my locality.
I think high school sports are a gray area between "youth" sports and the more competitive levels (college, pro) where people kind of go both ways.
At least in my experience.
It's also funny to me that one of the main arguments is the fact that they scored 100 points exactly. This apparently makes them mega-cocks, because they totally did it on purpose. This in spite of no evidence that they did it on purpose - everything I'm reading makes it sound like they started strong, went to a defensive formation, and slowly crept up on 100. They probably stopped there because there were only a few minutes left, and going over 100 would have looked REALLY bad.
Basically, anyone who thinks this is a travesty should petition to have a mercy rule implemented, where the game ends after a 50 point lead or something.
Anyway, I wonder if Dallas Academy's basketball team only exists for the slim chance that they might experience a once in a lifetime winning season which will then serve as the basis for an inspiring movie.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
It exists because it's an outlet. If it was closed I bet you that parents would go into a shitfest claiming discrimination of some sort.
I do feel bad about the coach of the other team. This whole thing is stupid.
So what was the purpose of the game?
I'll agree that the matchup probably should never have occurred, but how are we holding coaches and players responsible for being better than the other team? What sort of values are reflected when a coach is fired for his team being so much better than the opposition, in a competitive sport? I played Baseball for years and years in my youth and I can remember games where my team beat the snot out of our opponents and kept going as hard as we could to hit the mercy rule every inning. We turned the game into an exercise, trying to place our hits in specific places and attempting to take a triple on something that would usually be a double.
Really, if they were in the workplace as two teams competing to finish the same project we'd never see this reaction. If they were professional or collegiate teams we would never see this problem.
One team was much better than the other and both teams were aware of this. The purpose of the game is to score baskets. Since scoring baskets was too easy, they challenged themselves in a different way by attempting to hit a certain score.
I think that someone needs to just move on. This isn't worth someone's livelihood. The man was hired to coach the team and coax high performance from players. Now he doesn't have a job and he and his family will suffer because of it. Looks like I shouldn't try to outshine my co-workers, I may offend my clients.
I wouldn't have any issue if they hadn't fired the coach. Taking away a man's livelihood because of a media circus is what is really un-christlike.
2. The coach of the winning team should have told his point guard to stop stealing the ball. And if she didn't stop, he should have put her on the bench for the rest of the game. There is a difference between embarrassing the other team by intentionally sucking and actively trying to disrupt a team that hasn't even scored. It's the same reason you don't steal bases or stretch extra base hits in baseball when you're up by 10 runs.
I'd be interested to see how many shots the losing team got off, if any.
Jury's still out on that one.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The winning team only had 8 players too. It's not like they had 2nd and 3rd stringers.
I will agree that there should be a mercy rule instituted, though losing by the mercy rule always cut a little deeper than just getting my ass kicked, for me at least.
Because it's one thing to let your kids play and completely another to put them in a press against an opponent who seems to have trouble with the most basic aspects of the game.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Somebody mentioned that the losing team only got off like less than ten shots, but I don't know where the info came from.
Could be wrong.
Sure.
If by "started strong" you mean "played strong for three entire quarters." They scored more in the third than they had in the second, and not much less than they had in the first (something like 34 25 29 12, IIRC). And this "defensive formation" you speak of, at least by the account the opposing coach gave, consisted of "take the ball away from the other girl at half court and score."
Add in the accounts that the crowd was specifically pushing for 100, and it doesn't sound like they stopped there because going further would have looked worse. They stopped there because they got what they wanted.
Not stealing the ball from the other team at half court isn't poor play. There is no one right way to play basketball, pulling back into a zone defense and guarding them at the three point line is a pretty standard way to play.
The coach who wrote the editorial said he called it off after it was 25-0 or whatever. The other coach said they kept stealing the ball at half court, which also means they weren't pressing, so to me it seems like they were not running it entire game.
Also the coach of the losing team said that they "Kept the pressure on the whole game", which I think people are misinterpreting as "Kept the press on the whole game" instead of "Played hard the whole game".