Ah, but running up the score in NCAA Football DOES serve a legitimate purpose. Thanks to the BCS and computer rankings.

I'm still waiting for any confirmation or details regarding the Covenant team being disrespectful/mocking/insulting or anything else to the other team. Or at least something demonstrating that they all weren't just having a good time out there despite the terrible whooping, or any number of other things that would shoot all this complaining all to heck.

All I'm seeing is a lot of assuming and a lot of demonizing.

Bov, don't you think the score itself is mockery? If the score was 78-0 or 108-0, I could possibly (slightly maybe) see someone's point of view. But come on, to hit 100 and stop there? Just that is mockery. And, this isn't saying all the girls were laughing and jeering the other team, but there is a fundamental decency here that the "play sports hard" crowd seems to be ignoring. I mean, I could turn it around and say "Covenant sucked because they stopped playing with 4 minutes left." Right?

I personally want to see the video. The coach claims he ran the clock down, which simply cannot be true.
http://www.flightbasketball.com/100-0-Texas-Game-Response-From-Coach.html
That is what makes this so disgusting is that he can't admit he went overboard and then lies about it. If he had backed off and played simple zone, they couldn't have scored that many points. I don't think they use a shot clock, but let's assume they do. Had he simply played a conservative possession game, holding the ball 20 seconds and not pressing, that would mean his team scored 1 basket every 40 seconds if they NEVER MISSED. In the 3rd quarter they scored 29 points - 14 baskets if one of them was a 3 pointer. That would take over 9 minutes. I think girl games are 8 minutes. Right there - he is lying.

And one other thing, the whole "you play to win crowd" is full of shit for another reason - this team wasn't playing to win. When you have a substantial lead, you play possession and force the opposing team to foul and burn the clock.

Hell, I would at least respect someone if they said, "we had the power, they couldn't stop us, fuck them." At least they're being intellectually honest. All this "we play for the love of the game" bullshit makes me want to vomit.

Yeah, you're right. Boring everyone to death by standing around each possession wasting time and forcing the other team to foul or something in order to get something to happen is WAY more respectful. They'd never suspect that you were just goofing around and intentionally just wasting everyone's time doing nothing just because you pitied them.

Well, if it's true that the other team got off 7 shots total, that means they are getting a lot of forced turnovers and being very physical, doesn't it?

You're arguing that they should stop playing. I think you're oversimplifying it. The reasonable, rational argument is for them to stop the full court press and forcing turnovers. They obviously wanted both a shutout and 100+ points.

In football, you can put your backups in. That's one thing. you can also stop throwing deep balls for 50 yard touchdowns, too.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but yes - that is better.

Again, if your position is "fuck them, let them suffer", I can at least semi-respect that. At least the people saying that are being intellectually honest.

Just drop the whole "oh Covenant team was just playing hard" schtick. That is a simple, bold faced lie.

Let's say it's the State Championship and Covenant has an 8 point lead. I guarantee you with almost no doubt that they would draw out possessions. They would not attempt to aggressively steal. Why? Because in that game they would be playing to win. In this instance they were playing to humiliate.

If you don't see that, then there is no point in discussing it any further.

I guess we just have two different schools of thought here though, and we're probably not going to agree.

We have people like me who would be absolutely enraged if someone "went easy" on us when they had a big lead. I would hate that for a myriad of reasons....it would totally invalidate anything I did for the rest of the game since they'd basically be handing it to me, it wouldn't make me feel any better to "lose by less", I probably wouldn't learn anything, and frankly I'd want to keep trying to do better before the game ended, to at least get that point in.

I had a friend that was *extremely* good at chess and he insisted on doing that until I finally told him to knock it the fuck off. It was frustrating beyond belief for him to keep "going easy" on me. Sure I got totally steamrolled every game, but I was learning and I didn't mind the losing - regardless of how badly I got roflstomped.

And we have people who, well, just don't think that way. I won't try to explain their position for them, mostly because I don't totally understand it.

That's not quite true.

Think WoW arena since that's something everyone can relate too, a 1500 rated team will learn nothing from a 2400 rated team given that the game is lost so quickly and for reasons beyond their understanding.

A person can only learn so much so fast and thus it's better to increase the level of difficult gradually rather than being thrown right into the fire.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Chess is a good example, but you take it the wrong angle. You said you had a friend who would let you keep it close - but that's not what we're talking about here.

Imagine you and I play Chess. I'm going to play to Mate as quick as possible. That might mean you do something stupid and I slip a queen in your backfield. Or, that might mean I have to get up by 2 rooks before I can Mate.

Let's say we're down to 4 pawns each, you have 1 rook, and I have both rooks and my queen. This is a very easy Mating situation for me. But insted of Mating, I waltz around the board, kill all your pawns and your Rook. I then proceed to Queen my 4 remaining pawns. Then I Mate.

That's ridiculous and I was doing it just to let you know that you're a stupid bitch and I own you. Of course, in Chess you can lay down your King and as long as you are at an irrecoverable disadvantage, there is no shame. Unfortunately, basketball players are not given that option. Had the other team walked out, they woudl have been called sore losers.

Maybe I'm not being clear - if you are playing to win and playing hard, I respect that. But there is a point at which you stopped playing to win and started playing so you could jerk off on the opponent.

If Covenant was playing to win, they would have shown some restraint, measured their attacks, and wrapped the game up nicely. That is, they would have Mated in 6 moves. Instead, they marched around the board killing all the scraps and Queening their pawns, which is a thug move.

That's assuming the losing team doesn't know anything about WoW or arena. Anyone who is truly trying to learn and get better will be able to understand why they got destroyed, assuming they WANT to learn.

Another comparison was the first M:TG tournament I went to. I was clueless and played some totally shit-tastic blue deck and got absolutely destroyed in the very first round...I mean like absurdly and effortlessly destroyed...by a guy playing a deck he'd used to win a PTQ. (Pro Tour Qualifier)

Yeah, I was amazed....up until then I'd only played against friends and we were ALL bad so I didn't know any better....but that experience was pretty much what turned me around into the tournament-winning beast I was later. And I even got payback on the guy later, knocking him out of quite a few tourneys, heh.

But like I said, we all just have differing views of competition. I absolutely do not ever want to have people "go easy" on me. That would be the ultimate insult and form of disrespect to me. Like saying to me, "You don't even BELONG here, boy. You don't even DESERVE to see me play."

True, but at the same time the winning team also doesn't have the option of a quick mate either. They're stuck in the same situation the losing team is, they have to stay on that court. =(

I understand where you're coming from Bov, and I'm the same kind of person. I never cut my 10 years younger brother slack in ANYTHING, and I don't want slack in anything myself. But Orme is exactly right and his chess analogy is dead on.

I do think the chess analogy is good, but like I said above it isn't entirely fair to the winning team.

Sure, the losing team can't lay down their king and end it, but the winning team can't just checkmate either. They're both there for the duration. Imagine if, in that chess match, some judge said we HAD to play for 20 more minutes once in that situation where you've clearly already won. What do you do? I guess you could just move the same piece back and forth for 20 minutes, but that'd jsut be silly and annoying anyway.

It's really a lose-lose for the winning team no matter how you cut it once they got stuck up against that other team.

That's exactly what I mean when I say I enjoy being the underdog =)



It depends on the person. Some people have shit for capacity when learning under pressure, others do. I know for a fact that I never would have made it past 2.1k rating in Seasons 3 and 4 if I had not faced some of those nearly unbeatable teams early on. You learn a lot from them if you know where to look.

That's a slightly extreme situation I think, because there are other situations that don't go quite as quickly and therefore allow for more learning room, but I'd still respond with the above to that.



And that is precisely why you need to define "respect". I believe respect falls more along what krby outlined, in that it's disrespectful to your opponent to go easy on them especially so much that they cannot learn and try and find new ways to adapt if you don't afford them the opportunity to go against your best stuff.



Just because it might serve no legitimate purpose doesn't make it a personal attack. It's only a personal attack if someone else lets it get to them. Though, I contend it still does serve a legitimate purpose in that it gives your opponent a chance to learn. Denying your opponent that opportunity is disrespectful.

Well said.

And like I said earlier, it's very subjective. Just because someone ELSE gets butthurt does not make something universally disrespectful. You can go to any number of countries in the world and find out that respectful, polite actions vary wildly depending on what the norms ended up being in those cultures.

I'd go so far as to say that's even true with my view on it being disrespectful to "go easy" on your opponent, though my reasoning goes beyond a simplistic "it might hurt the other person's feelings" and revolves more around whether or not your opponent can learn and adapt. There are no such caveats with the suggestion that it might be disrespectful to play hard even in the face of an already-resounding victory.

I get my feelings hurt when you shoot a basket and my left leg is inside the zone. I get my feelings hurt when you block my shot. I get my feelings hurt when you steal the ball and I'm dancing with a hula-hoop and standing with one foot with a hand behind my back.

The list goes on and on. The responsibility for one's feelings getting hurt lies solely with the receving person in question, and unless the intent is truly malicious and actual harm is being done, there's no reason to get upset. As it stands, they are playing the game by the rules, which hardly falls under the malicious category.

The chess analogy is pretty spot on, especially if you don't try to relate "time" directly. The whole point is that the classy thing is to do what you need to do to win. Not to do what you need to do to make the other team look stupid.

Ok, I'll drop it after this.

The point is, if Covenant was truly "just playing to win", this is not the strategy they would follow. They didn't play to win. They kept running and gunning, which is where I have the problem. The coach even lies about it - claiming he called the dogs off and started running possessions out. That to me is proof he knows he did something wrong - why else lie? Why wouldn't he say, "we played hard the whole time. We never meant disrespect, but that's how we play. I don't want my kids taking plays off because then they might do it in big games." he doesn't say that. he CLAIMS he did take it easy (which is bullshit to anyone who knows the game).

But anyhoo, that's it for the coach.

You guys brought up WoW, so I'll cover it and drop it.

I have a 1500 rating and you have 2300. We get in a match. You can ass blast me and end it, which is how it should be played. If you were to not equip 3 pieces of armor to make it fair, that would be stupid. That is not what we're talking about.

Here is a better example for how I see the 100-0 score.
I have a 2300 team. You and your buddy are 1500.
We blast you down to 300 hp each. Then, we sheep your warrior.
We then take off all our gear and proceed to hand-to-hand against your resto druid (all the while using /dance) and mana draining him.
We eventually let sheep wear off the warrior and run around in circles randomly equipping gear.

Eventually you get sick of it and quit out.

What we did was within the rules of the game. That makes us no less gay.

And with that, I'm done. There's nothing new left to write

Yeah, we've pretty much exhausted all avenues of discussion here. (And quite civilly I might add!)

Probably not much point in keeping on keeping on here. I doubt we'll be convincing each other any time soon.

That's not the same as playing your best. You did things that you WOULDN'T have done if you were facing a tough team.

If anything your analogy here bolsters the argument for playing 100-0. They added insult to injury precisely by going easy on them. Subbing in your non-starter lineup and then proceeding to use strategies that would never work on a real team is almost exactly the same as sheeping them and using your fists to pummel them down.





Perception, and judged by the eye of the beholder. If that's the exact intent, then obviously it wasn't done for good reasons nor good intent. If you look stupid if people are willing to see it that way. To the next person, you could well look like a very competitive determined player going up against a giant.

I'm sure glad there wasn't a WNBA Jam. Imagine all the tears.

Except this wasn't really a game of peer vs peer. Peer means in the same league. it's obvious the one team was not in the same league as the other as far as capability is concerned.

So, therefore, no, you're wrong. This is exactly like, say, the #1 team in College playing the dead last team and it going to 100 - 0. Regardless, with a score like that, you quit watching mid way through. It became a boring game long before, no matter if they would "have just waited around on the court" or not. Doing something like going "Hey guys, let's get exactly X number of points and then just not let them score" is doing the exact thing a lot of you are against. it's mocking them. They know you could score more, they know you could have scored 50 less and been fine, but you CHOSE to make that statement.

Now, do I blame the players? No. Why? You're on the team, you do what the coach says, when the coach says it. You don't disobey the coach, period. So the blame fell squarely on his shoulders, where it should have been, and he took the heat.

The fact there are some of you who don't see something inherently wrong with this is beyond me, and why you don't think he should have been fired. He should have been. In fact, there's a good shot that he knew what was going to come from it. The only thing he did do was save his players from being punished, and really they shouldn't have been anyway. They were doing what they were told. Any other time, they would have been yelled at for disobeying the coach.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

My opinions, for whatever it is worth (sorry, some if it might have already been said earlier...)-

This is girls high school basketball between a clearly superior team and a team comprised of 8 girls (all with special learning needs- ADD, dyslexia, learning problems, etc) at a school that hasn't lost in four years. It is not for the state championship, it is not playoffs... it is a regular season game. And it was quite clear from the get-go that the superior team was clearly the better team.

When it gets to be 59-0 at halftime, everyone in the building knows the game is over. At that point, the superior team should have treated the second half as practice- get different players out there, practice some certain plays, practice pick and roll, whatever. Instead, they were all out-going, putting their foot in the other team's throat. While this is generally considered OK for professional sports and most big time collegiate programs (as someone said earlier NCAA football)... it really isn't necessary for girls high school basketball. Especially when it is just a regular season game that really means nothing. The superior team had a full court press (I guess coach said he had an alternate press going.... still a press), was going after every steal, and was jacking up threes. Not even pro and college teams are doing this- they aren't in full court press situations up by 40 with 5 minutes left in the game. It is bad sportsmanship. Period.

For those of you who want to challenge that sports is all about winning... OK. At what point can you say that you have won this game? 59-0 at half? 89-0 in the fourth quarter with six minutes left in the game? Chances are.... you know you have won the game probably at the end of the first quarter when you are up 35-0. You pretty much know you have won the game when (from what I read) you allow your opposition seven field goal attemps THE ENTIRE GAME. Not quarter, not half... GAME. And considering your opponent is a team that hasn't won a game in 4 years... the chances of them coming back from 35-0 down at the end of the first quarter and beating your team is as much a chance as I am going to have sex with Scarlett Johannsen. And for those scoring at home... that is zero chance.

Having said all of that... it is also wrong for the winning team the next day to "feel bad" and want to forfeit the game. The losing team had already forgotten about it, they lost, they move on. Quite frankly I am sure they are far more concerned with other more serious things in their lives than a basketball win/loss. If they feel so bad about it, maybe they shouldn't have run up the score like that in the first place. I mean, what athlete in their right mind during a team game looks at the scoreboard and says "O crap we are only up 77-0? What the hell guys pick up the damn pace and DO IT!" Learn from the experience, learn that when the game is out of hand then show some sportsmanship, win your game, show effort and execute some fundamentals, and move on... but don't go killer throat instinct on your opponent. Especially when it means absolutely nothing to do so.

It is also wrong for the coach to be fired over this. If anything, he needs to understand some sportsmanship- understand what to do when the game is clearly out of hand, what to do when the game is clearly over. It was poor judgment to run up the score like that, given the circumstances and the opponent. Learn from your mistake, move on. But you shouldn't be fired for this- that is wrong.

To summarize-

It was wrong for the team to run up the score when the game was clearly out of reach.
It was wrong for the team to go full court press, steal every pass, and shoot threes in the second half when you are already up 80+ points.
It was wrong for the team the next day to want to forfeit the game out of "mercy" to the other team. You won, they lost. Move on.
It was wrong for the coach to get fired for this. See summary points 1-2 for what he should have learned from his poor judgment.
Sportsmanship was not displayed by the winning team during the game, and those players and coach should learn what that really is.

And I think Zatronn said it best early when he said something like "We know who the athletes are on this thread and who are not". Being a former athlete I cannot condone this type of running up the score- play to win the game, not play to humiliate and embarass your opponent by 100 in victory.

_________________

Sorry- the losing team hasn't won in four years... not hasn't lost in four years. No edit, my bad.

PS- went back and read most of the thread. Chess analogy was dead on- play to win the game, then win. Don't mock and embarass your opponent, which is what running up a 100-0 score is... or crowning all your pawns to be queens (or whatever that stance is).

Someone asked what the winning team should have done in the second half. Well- they should not have continued a full court press defense. They should not have tried to steal the ball on EVERY possession. They should not be jacking up three point shots and going all out for offensive rebounds. If a quarter lasts 8 minutes in girls high school basketball, they don't have to hold the ball for 8 minutes that quarter... but if you are putting up more than 12 non-offensive rebound shots then that is probably too much. As far as defense goes- just put your hands up, give them a foot or two of space, don't try and block the shot... just get your hands up, box out, and rebound. On offense, just run some motion plays, maybe diagram a couple plays that can take some time off the clock. Do the UNC four corners offense or whatever. But for all I can come up what they should have done is almost irrelevant- we all know what they should NOT have done. And doing so would have still made them won the game and not have all this controversy.

At the very least, they are now known throughout sports and have become sports/internet/talk show radio stars. GG.

_________________

This is why you're worthless. You don't make any effort to read or understand. I specifically stated in a previous post that running the score is NOT what they would do against a real team. Have you ever played competitive basketball? Or watched it at least?

Sometimes I think you don't actually have a point. Instead, you start over on each post and try to look for things to contradict.

The specific point made above is that Covenant DID NOT do what they normally would do. They ran the score up. If this was the State Finals and they had a 20 point lead, they would have slowed possessions down because that's the right strategy. When you are playing to win, you run the clock out. That is, if they were the 2300 team, they would have decimated the 1500s and moved on by minimizing steals, maximizing possessions, forcing outside shots, and drawing fouls. But insted, they pressed, rushed possessions, and pressured shots. Which is the whole "taking off armor and dancing routine." Which you continue not to get, but oh well.

Watch a basketball game between two solid teams. In the fourth quarter (less than 6 minutes left in college second half) if the team is up by 10 points or so, they generally will milk the clock and take every shot clock down to single digits unless they have an easy wide open dunk/lay up/etc. The reason is to prevent the other team from getting the ball and scoring on their offensive possession.

It is just like a football team that is up a touchdown running the ball at the end of the game, and letting the play clock go down to 1 before hiking the ball. They want the clock to run, they don't want the other team to get the ball and score, so they milk the clock down to run/use up as much time as possible.

In Orme's situation, the championship team is up 20 in the fourth quarter. They go to a slow down motion, just dribbling and passing the ball. They are wasting time, milking the clock down, so that the other team cannot score. This is smart basketball, this is winning basketball. Shooting within 5 seconds of getting the ball back and missing the shot, then letting the other team shoot a three makes the difference 17. Inbound the ball, jack up a wild three after only using four seconds on the clock, missing shot, other team pushes ball down and shoots and makes a three... now differnce is 14. In a matter of 20 seconds other team just cut the lead down to 14. Or... you could have just dribbled and passed the ball around to waste time and you are still up 20.

It is just smart time clock management. I get it, Orme gets it, Zatronn gets it, Joxur gets it, several others get. Then again, we also get sports and team sports...

_________________

The difference there is that they're not doing that to "be nice" or merciful. They're doing it to lock it down and make sure they win.

You guys keeps throwing out these analogies that don't really apply, and I still think the Chess one is one of them too...it assumes that the winning team can just "end it" somehow and they're choosing not to.

It assumes the winning side is in control of the game and can end it how they see fit. You just keep getting hung up on "when" it ends and fail to see the forest for the trees.

The question I have then is this-

At what point during the game is the outcome decided? That there is a clear winner, a clear loser, regardless of how much time is left on the clock?

The answer- it depends on each specific game.

In the Dallas girls high school basketball game in question, the outcome was decided pretty much at halftime. You could make an argument that it was decided at the end of the first quarter, and I would not debate that with you. But giving all benefits of doubt... the outcome is decided at halftime with the score 59-0. This is determined based on how the game has gone up to that point, based on the talent difference between the two teams, based on the history of the team losing at that point (no wins in four years, etc), based on other factors.

At that point, sportsmanship needs to kick in. You have won the game. Play out the remainder of it, then prepare for the next game. Instead the superior team continued to play as if the outcome was in doubt and in jeopardy. By doing so they embarassed, insulted, and humiliated the other team. They clearly showed no sportsmanship. And while there is no written rule that says you have to have sportsmanship... there are unwritten rules among athletes that say otherwise. And I guess you have to be an athlete to understand these unwritten rules.

At any point, a NBA team can go after Lebron James' knees and ankles, breaking his leg and severly putting his future with the NBA in jeopardy. By doing so they can greatly reduce the odds of Cleveland winning a title this year. But you know why teams don't do that? Sportsmanship. The unwritten rule amongst players. Compete against each other, win fairly, lose fairly.

Fairness was not a part of the winning team's coach's vocabulary. Nor was sportsmanship as he ran up a 100-0 score. He should not be fired for this, I think the public backlash against him is probably good enough punishment for him to learn this lesson...

_________________

And in this case the winning team CANNOT just end the game.

That's the problem with the analogy, it makes it sound like the winning team could just say, "Ok, we did it, lets all go home." but are CHOOSING not to do so.

But they can't. They're in the same boat as the losing team, they MUST stay there and do something. There's no choice to just mop it up and go home. It's either 1) Continue playing as they were or 2) Start just going easy. And that just takes us back to the original differences of opinion.



This goes back to the assumptions. Did the other team say anything about feeling slighted like this?

So it comes down to sportsmanship.

If you see nothing wrong with a team that runs up a score to 100-0 during a non playoff girls high school basketball game... then you don't have sportsmanship.

If you feel that a team that is up 59-0 at halftime during a non playoff girls high school basketball game, and then proceeds to continue to play at the same pace/intensity as the first half while running up the score to 100-0 is wrong/unethical/embarassing/etc... then you have sportsmanship.

I guess you are in one boat, or the other. Bovinity is in the first boat, I am in the second. Woo.

_________________

I love when people come into a reasonable discussion and try to turn it into another troll-infested thread. We were doing just fine agreeing to disagree, thanks.

Again, while they can't just end the game immediately, they CAN end the game however they choose. Maybe not whenever, but however for sure. They hold all the cards, make all the choices. The play of the loser is dictated by the team in absolute control. The manner they choose to do it in is significant to people who care about sportsmanship. I respectfully submit that the commonly accepted version of a good winner is one who wins gracefully, with some degree of respect for their opponent. When your opponent is clearly unable to compete and you're forced to play anyway, I think showing that respect has to fall along the lines of taking the opportunity to better yourself as a team, not showing the world how badly you can destroy your opponent.

If this version of a good winner is not understandable at all, at least accept that there are many people involved with sports out there who adhere to it. Those sorts of people are going to have a low opinion of "poor winners." To endorse the sort of behavior that they/we dislike will lead to arguments and hard feelings almost always. If you're ok with that, then cool. Different strokes for different folks.

I was under the assumption that they WERE in the same division at least. Under the same skill level? Obviously not. But that's not what I mean when I talk of peers. I speak of two sets of people of the same age bracket. And, as it relates to the kid learning chess analogy by Draagun, the point is that kids cannot be held to the same standards because they are often not going to be emotionally mature enough to not let serious, consistent loss get to them.

Mockery only exists and is effective if two things are true: 1) The winning team in question is *purposefully* with intent trying to mock the other team. Merely scoring higher is no indication of that. 2) The other team allows themselves to be mocked, and gets butthurt about it.

They could win by 10 points. 20 points. 50 points. 100 points. You're going to tell me that 50 points is the magic number between that and 100 where mockery no longer exists?

1)Scoring 100-0 is an indication of that, at least on the coaches part. Another agree to disagree point, but the perception for most is of mockery, I think.

2)Not true. I can make fun of a special ed kid all day long and he probably won't even notice. People who care about him might take exception, however. Only under a very narrow definition of the terms is your argument consistent.

Obviously I'm not there, so I could be wrong, but I would be willing to bet that the coach would not have been fired had he not sent the email to the newspaper publicly contradicting his bosses. Disciplined? Sure. Fired? Doubt it. He crossed a very public line at the point he hit "send" on that email. This is the third time I've pointed this out, and Tarot I believe pointed it out as well once.

Also, (and probably the only thing left for me to say that I didn't already say on the first page) I've watched a few games at our highschool where the score was heavily lopsided. While not as bad as this game, whenever it happened, the fans on *both* sides of the game begin to get uncomfortable. Things get quiet, and both sides begin to cheer for the team that is losing whenever they get something right. They are parents after all, and most of instinctively understand that 100-0 is simply unnecessary.

No matter how much I want to smash your skull from time to time, I think you're reasonable. Some men though, you just can't reach. So you get what we have here today.

[quote="Venen]They could win by 10 points. 20 points. 50 points. 100 points. You're going to tell me that 50 points is the magic number between that and 100 where mockery no longer exists?[/quote]That would be when they're up 20+ points and doing a full court press (if that true). Or, when they're actively trying to steal and running fast breaks. Or, when they should be slow dribbling the perimeter drawing down time but are choosing to drive the bucket.

But, since you apparently have no idea about basketball, this is the point where the 2300 team takes off their armor and types /dance.

My grandfather WAS actually a master competitive player. And whipped my ass every day for many, many years. I became an exceptional player because of it. I worked hard, learned much, and researched a TON to finally beat him. And when I did? It was the greatest feeling in the world, and I thanked him for never letting up.

Lets all move to California where they don't keep score so no one has hurt feelers!!!

Funny thing is I was in a game much like this one in the sixth grade. We were up 60 something to teens. I had a technical called on me for rebounding the ball and giving it back to the shooter (on the other team) so he could shoot it again.

Apples and cabbage....I was never in a position to run/play against that group of athletes nor were any of them eligible to compete against me in the leagues I ran/played in. That's not a very good analogy Tyral. What is a fair comparison is that I did run the 100m in the upper 10s level and there were guys running it in the 11-12s level. Every time I stepped out on that track, they knew they were going to lose to me unless something extraordinary happened, like a false start or I tore a muscle during the run. The difference between my scenario and your scenario is that they were in the same competitive league as I was and they had the choice of running against me. I, however, did not have the obligation to run at their level.

You can also use the U.S. Men's olympic basketball team as an example. They would run the score up against lesser opponents not because they wanted to embarass anyone, but because their level of play is just that much higher than their opponents. You either forfeit or you walk away a loser after having your ass handed to you by a superior team. Those are really your only two options when an inferior team plays a superior team in the same league.



It'll be interesting to see if all will employment was a factor here. I seriously doubt a coach's contract includes any wording about not running up the score or not playing the B-team when you are far ahead of your opponent. Then again, maybe there is wording to that regard...only they know for sure.

I know enough to know that the difference between 50 and 100 points is negligible at best. Both are all-but-insurmountable wins. Regardless, it's silly to suggest that mockery exists at one point but not the other, especially if you're going to tell me that you know their intent via psychic powers.



No, because you need to know intent. I could be scoring 100-0 because I enjoy seeing the ball go through the hoop, or any number of reasons.

Or, much more likely, the team simply wants to keep playing their best and not slow down, and afford the other team respect by not poking fun at them by doing so.



That's a pretty specific case. Obviously you'd have some eyewitnesses there and, even though you actually didn't DIRECTLY harm someone, you may have indirectly. In the general case, the people it's directed at need to be able to take offense.

Just as an example to a somewhat similar version of an "insult" or "mockery", a friend and I are practicing and he keeps getting nothing but rim shots. I tell him "You're doing fuckin horrible tonight!". Depending on your relationship and how thick-skinned he is, it may produce nothing more than a chuckle. By the same token, people all have varying levels of tolerance for such things.

At SOME point, you have to come to some kind of conclusion on what MOST people will accept. My contention is that something like scoring high is such a small matter that only the more thin-skinned and least competitive folks will take offense at it. Bystanders and witnesses too have little to fret over as in the situation with the special ed kid, because you're not really promoting anything that is specific or intentional mockery.

This falls under the same category as "it's rude to burp" or "it's rude to put your elbows on the table". It's convention because enough people got offended by it. But, I also think that at some point something so miniscule needs to be re-examined as a cultural norm.

Venen, you conveniently overlook the core of my point.
They played to 100-0 to prove they could. There is no other reason to run up the score that much as has been covered multiple times. In a real game, they would slowed down to protect their lead.

Either way, it doesn't matter because the coach was rightfully fired and will be hard pressed to get another job unless it's with some ass hat administration.

There were 3 HS Football games last your that had scores of 91-0 and 96-0 and 96-0. The 96-0 in Ohio should have been 102-0 but they took a knee on the 1 yard line.

We had several blowouts this past year in football, the biggest of which was 42-0 and after the first quarter, we had JV in, after half time we had mostly non-playing JV and freshman in. The other team just couldn't score yet we still caught grief because of the shutout.

Here is a story about the Florida game...

http://sports.espn.go.com/highschool/ri ... id=3641717

ESTERO, Fla. -- The Estero High football staff gathered in head coach Rich Dombroski's office late Friday, almost in stunned silence.

Earlier that night, Estero lost to Naples High by 13.

Not by 13 points. By 13 touchdowns. That's right: Naples 91, Estero 0.

Naples did absolutely nothing wrong. We just didn't do anything right.

--Estero football coach Rich Dombroski

The rout fallout has been growing since the game ended.

"Hey," offered Estero defensive line coach Pat Hayes after the one-sided affair, "I didn't even know 91 was a multiple of seven."

With that, the coaches all got a much-needed laugh.

A half-hour away in Naples, Eagles coach Bill Kramer -- the man on the winning end -- could use one of those.

He looked at the scoreboard late in the game, saw 91-0, and said he felt sick to his stomach. Kramer's team ran only 31 plays and he kept most of his best players on the sideline -- for the entire game in some cases. But still Kramer knew what was coming.

Soon after the game ended, his inbox began filling with angry e-mails, some from Estero parents wondering why so many points were necessary, some from Naples parents wondering why their kids didn't play more in an effort to pad their stats.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Fribur, I'm still waiting for you to explain how sticking up for his kids was the reason he got fired. Simple petty office politics? Or do YOU think he was wrong to stick up for them?

That is a good point. Let's talk about the Dream Team in 1992. This is arguably the greatest basketball team ever assembled.

Even the greatest in the world had sense enough to tone it down. They won by 116-48, which is a trouncing, and they play much longer. Find them on YouTube, I would wager they didn't press and allowed a lot of outside shots. Why? Because even with us wanting to hot dog and show how good our team was, we realize there's a point to chill out.

He wasn't fired for "sticking up for his kids." He was fired for publicly disagreeing with his boss in a situation where they were running damage control.

It really seems like common sense, at least if you have ever worked in any job that regularly deals with the public. If he wanted to keep his job, he should have disagreed privately.

Just wanted to point this out from the article.

"Kramer's team ran only 31 plays"

Most high school football games have between 120 and 150 total plays, that's an average of 60-75 plays per side. Them running only 31 plays tells me that their were either a ton of turnovers or they couldn't stop a run.

Same with the basketball game, before I make judgement show me the stats on how many turnovers the losing team made. Did they constantly walk, DD, pass to the wrong player? How many fast breaks did the winning team run after rebounds, etc..?

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

I think he made the right choice. He chose, regardless of what you say, to stick up for the honor and integrity of the girls on his team rather than keep his job if you are correct and his actions on the court were not what got him fired.

The school's "damage control" should have been aimed at the Coach, not the girls. They put him in the position of staying quiet and allowing the school to smear these girls in public or speaking out and disagreeing with his boss. Not fun and it shows his loyalty to those girls that he chose as he did. HE made the choices on that court, not the girls, and HE should bear the consequences. The school tried to paint the entire team & coach with the same brush and he called them on it.

Personally, I still see very little evidence that the girls themselves were personally attacked at all. He was standing up for himself, not for them.

The school made a public apology for what happened. They didn't place blame on anyone, and if it's like most schools I'm sure privately the focus was directly on the coach who allowed it.

Why do I keep reading this thread!?!? Must....stop...myself......somehow.....

Perhaps you should read:


The school did not differentiate in their apology. If they had called only the coach's actions dishonorable I would probably have agreed with them. But they didn't:


Quote:
"The Covenant School, its board and administrators, regrets the incident of January 13 and the outcome of the game with the Dallas Academy Varsity Girls Basketball team. It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened. This clearly does not reflect a Christ-like and honorable approach to competition."

The Christian school also sought to forfeit the game saying "a victory without honor is a great loss."


The only person to say the girls behaved honorably was this coach you are so against:


Quote:
Grimes, who was in his fourth season at the school, disagreed with the school's apology and said his team played with "honor."

"I respectfully disagree with the apology, especially the notion that the Covenant School girls basketball team should feel 'embarrassed' or 'ashamed,'" Grimes wrote in an e-mail posted on a youth basketball Web site on Sunday and published in The Dallas Morning News.

"We played the game as it was meant to be played and would not intentionally run up the score on any opponent. Although a wide-margin victory is never evidence of compassion, my girls played with honor and integrity and showed respect to Dallas Academy."

His e-mail seems to be much more about the girls than about himself.

yep; I read that. I still stand by my statements.

First, the coach "allowed" nothing. He was absolutely in control of everything that went on on that court.

Second, why do you think he was wrong to stick up for the girls? Or, alternatively as you think he didn't, where in his e-mail did he defend himself without regard to the girls?

Third, why do you believe it's ok for the school to not differentiate between the girls and their coach?

Exactly. Not sure what you are trying to say here.




You are going to have to read my posts a little more carefully. For the first one, I already specifically pointed out that this isn't about him being "wrong to stick up for the girls." Feel free to scroll up and read again. For the second, I I never said he didn't stick up for the girls. Again, please read my emails.

Look, take the situation out of it. In jobs with a public to please, a boss generally won't let their employees publicly disagree with them. If Bush's press secretary said, "I think the war in Iraq sucks!" while they were trying to make a case to invade, you can bet he won't remain there long.

Of COURSE he got canned. He basically said, "I think my boss sucks." Of COURSE there were reprecussions. I never commented on whether that was a good thing or not (allthough I think the guy was a douche during that game and have no problem with him being gone). Go read my posts. I only pointed out what is probably the truth, regardless of whether you think it's right or not: that if he had not sent that email, he probably would not have gotten fired. That was when he crossed a line where the school is forced to act.

Wherever you work, I'm sure they don't do everything right. Go to the news and declare that your employer sucks for whatever reason, and see how long you keep your job. Then maybe you'll get it.

Fribur I guess we look at this from 2 completely different perspectives. You as a teacher and me as a parent involved in school sports programs. I see it as both the coach's and the school's first and most important job the promoting of student achievement and protecting/nurturing their abilities. The school ABSOLUTELY failed as far as I'm concerned by not being absolutely clear in whose actions they were calling nonchristian and dishonorable. Those are tough and damaging words, certainly not words any 17 or 18 year old would want to explain to a recruiter. The coach, on the other hand, failed on the court to teach these girls some valuable lessons but when push came to shove he stepped up and stood up to the school's characterization of the girls as nonchristian and dishonorable. The school did NOT respond by stating that the remarks were aimed at the Coach rather than the girls. As a parent formerly involved in HS sports and collegiate recruiting via my son I would be incredibly angry at those school officials.

Kula, you bring up an interesting point. From your perspective, the coach was in a no-win situation. Either he pisses off his bosses at the school or he stays quiet and loses the confidence/trust of his team.

If Dallas Academy are on the ball, they would be smart to hire this excellent coach and bring there basketball team out of its 4 year slump.

_________________
Jake Rivers - Senex Legio
Get off my Lawn alliance