High Coach beats down team 161-2 and gets suspended 2 games.

[Deleted]

Somebody should've stopped the damn game. If I'm the ref, I'm going to the coaches and saying, "Look... Everyone in this gymnasium just witnessed two quarters full of an asswhooping. I know it's halftime, but I'm calling it now. Go home."

[ritt works hard fo da chickens]

Jan 16, 2015 23:55:27 GMT -5 Hugh Mungus said:

I don't know who said this:

"It's not my job to stop my team from scoring. It's your job to stop my team."

In the pro's. This is high school. And girl's basketball no less. The coaches job is much more than a win/loss record. He's the mentor to them to teach them sportsmanship, teamwork and so much more. Realistically maybe 1 player per girl's team on average is going to get a scholarship offer for her high school ball play. And of those who do get to play in college less than one percent of them will get a shot at the pro's. And of those rare few who get a shot at pro's the average career of a WNBA player is three years, they might be able to pad a few more years out in semipro and overseas, but most need a fall back plan sooner than later. Yes winning is good but it is ultimately a minor detail to most of these girls in the long run. If it's only about winning and being the best at basketball then you might as well tell the majority of those girls they are just wasting their time playing high school ball and ultimately scrap about 99% of girl's high school sports programs and just have a few recruitment prep schools with programs. I don't think that coach should have been suspended, he should have been released from the program to pursue his passion as a professional coach because stats and records mean more in the pro's. At the school level it is those intangibles that don't show up in box scores that are what make good coaches.

I mean the coaches knew going into it who had the stronger team, and had an agreement beforehand. The other coach took liberties to prove something entirely unnecessary. Most people have the decency to handicap themselves to make games fun for all when their is such a skill/talent disparity. That's what this is a game, not a career. When you're a 6' man playing driveway ball with a 4' tall preteen you can block every shot he takes and drive hard and dunk on him or you can let him take some shots and when you got the ball use that time to work on your far outside shot and you're own rebounding. The first way you win and probably broke the kids will to play against you at least until puberty will give him a shot or the second way you both get some practice and things stay fun for everyone.

[Professor Chaos]

Should've suspended whoever felt the need to foul and ruined the shutout.

[Danimal]

How much practice are you really getting if the opponent is THAT inferior? They'd be better-off preserving themselves bringing subs in very early and playing half-court D then getting some extra scrimmage time in later.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Pro or not, you don't run up the score. That's it. Sure you can, one day it'll come back. It always does.

[BigWill]

Such a pathetic story, not only for the unfairness of it, but for the message it sends to youth.

I mean, what is the coach suppose to do? Purposely tell his team to play badly to give the other team a shot? That's even more insulting to their opponents than just flat out stomping them. Not to mention, if such a game was seen as so unsportsmanlike, where were the officials to stop the game at half time? And if the other team were so offended, why didn't they surrender? It's not up to the winning coach or his team to show mercy.

["Gentleman" AJ Powell]

Shouldn't the other coach have thrown the towel in after his team got curb stomped like that in the first half?

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2015 8:21:57 GMT -5 "Gentleman" AJ Powell said:

Shouldn't the other coach have thrown the towel in after his team got curb stomped like that in the first half?

That's the "never quit, never give up" attitude, I guess.

If anything that person should've been suspended for letting their team be embarrassed.

Life is stupid.

[Unocal 76]

In high school sports, apparently Herman Edwards was wrong. You Play to Not Lose The Game by a Big Margin!

[Dr. T is an alien]

Jan 17, 2015 6:37:17 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Such a pathetic story, not only for the unfairness of it, but for the message it sends to youth.

I mean, what is the coach suppose to do? Purposely tell his team to play badly to give the other team a shot? That's even more insulting to their opponents than just flat out stomping them. Not to mention, if such a game was seen as so unsportsmanlike, where were the officials to stop the game at half time? And if the other team were so offended, why didn't they surrender? It's not up to the winning coach or his team to show mercy.

If my kid was on that winning team I would have wanted the coach reprimanded in some manner too. Maybe some kids get something different out of it, but high school sports are still supposed to be learning experiences. It is supposed to help you develop into a grown up. Handling both winning and losing are life experiences that young athletes should get out of the game.

What did the kids on the winning team learn? They learned how to be bullies. There was such a talent differential between these teams that the result was a foregone conclusion from the onset. That part was unavoidable. What was avoidable was taking such liberties with that disparity for one full half before you sort of let up (the report did not indicate that they stopped the full court press and the score suggests that they did not). When you are that superior to your opponent, to continue thrashing them unrelentingly until you have a triple digit lead and then sort of letting up, can you honestly tell me that there wasn't a little bit of bullying going on?

As far as the coach goes, he is lucky to just get suspended. A few years ago in Texas a girls high school team winning by a score of 100-0 cost the coach his job. The school fired him and then appealed to the state high school athletic commission to let them retroactively forfeit the game that they won because winning without honor was a great loss in their eyes.

[ritt works hard fo da chickens]

Jan 17, 2015 6:37:17 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Such a pathetic story, not only for the unfairness of it, but for the message it sends to youth.

I mean, what is the coach suppose to do? Purposely tell his team to play badly to give the other team a shot? That's even more insulting to their opponents than just flat out stomping them. Not to mention, if such a game was seen as so unsportsmanlike, where were the officials to stop the game at half time? And if the other team were so offended, why didn't they surrender? It's not up to the winning coach or his team to show mercy.

Yes it is a pathetic story and a terrible message to send to youth but for the exact opposite reasons you state.

I'd agree with you that the coach should have run up the score if the only other option was to condescendingly play badly. However you've framed the debate into only two options, either win by the largest margin possible or be patronizing and play "badly" on purpose. Those weren't his only options and I choose to believe that no coach is stupid enough to believe that. There are several other options. He knew going into the game the level disparity. He could have started three or four bench players and gave them some playing and learning time with time with the starters. He could have had his frontline and backline switch positions and have the bigger girls work on their outside shots and the smaller girls work on rebounding, which they probably don't get to do as much during a game with similarly skilled opponents and improved skills that may actually make them better. He could have run the high risk plays and the plays he knew were his teams weaker ones so they could get better. Instead he went with the lowest easiest route for a big number. As I said he is a school coach in name only but a procoach wannabe failure at heart who is a tryhard trying to make up for the fact he isn't where he thinks he should be.

A high school coach does so much more than rack up stats. He teaches youth how to interact with each other using skills they develop. In every game their are winners and losers. However, if the losers are pushed out of relevance you are going to find less and less competition and greater disparities as there becomes less bridges between skill gaps.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Jan 17, 2015 19:03:29 GMT -5 ritt works hard fo da chickens said:

Jan 17, 2015 6:37:17 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Such a pathetic story, not only for the unfairness of it, but for the message it sends to youth.

I mean, what is the coach suppose to do? Purposely tell his team to play badly to give the other team a shot? That's even more insulting to their opponents than just flat out stomping them. Not to mention, if such a game was seen as so unsportsmanlike, where were the officials to stop the game at half time? And if the other team were so offended, why didn't they surrender? It's not up to the winning coach or his team to show mercy.

Yes it is a pathetic story and a terrible message to send to youth but for the exact opposite reasons you state.

I'd agree with you that the coach should have run up the score if the only other option was to condescendingly play badly. However you've framed the debate into only two options, either win by the largest margin possible or be patronizing and play "badly" on purpose. Those weren't his only options and I choose to believe that no coach is stupid enough to believe that. There are several other options. He knew going into the game the level disparity. He could have started three or four bench players and gave them some playing and learning time with time with the starters. He could have had his frontline and backline switch positions and have the bigger girls work on their outside shots and the smaller girls work on rebounding, which they probably don't get to do as much during a game with similarly skilled opponents and improved skills that may actually make them better. He could have run the high risk plays and the plays he knew were his teams weaker ones so they could get better. Instead he went with the lowest easiest route for a big number. As I said he is a school coach in name only but a procoach wannabe failure at heart who is a tryhard trying to make up for the fact he isn't where he thinks he should be.

A high school coach does so much more than rack up stats. He teaches youth how to interact with each other using skills they develop. In every game their are winners and losers. However, if the losers are pushed out of relevance you are going to find less and less competition and greater disparities as there becomes less bridges between skill gaps.

Not to mention that he had his girls still shooting 3 pointers throughout the whole game. According to Keith Olbermann, the first game of his suspension was already played with the coach's 19 yr old son filling in as coach. It was still a blowout, but of the 80-19 variety. I suspect that that game could have been just as ugly as the game that got his dad suspended, but instead the kid probably did not have the girls full court press when they were ahead and shoot 2 point shots instead of 3 pointers once they got up big.

[BigWill]

Jan 17, 2015 19:03:29 GMT -5 ritt works hard fo da chickens said:

Jan 17, 2015 6:37:17 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Such a pathetic story, not only for the unfairness of it, but for the message it sends to youth.

I mean, what is the coach suppose to do? Purposely tell his team to play badly to give the other team a shot? That's even more insulting to their opponents than just flat out stomping them. Not to mention, if such a game was seen as so unsportsmanlike, where were the officials to stop the game at half time? And if the other team were so offended, why didn't they surrender? It's not up to the winning coach or his team to show mercy.

Yes it is a pathetic story and a terrible message to send to youth but for the exact opposite reasons you state.

I'd agree with you that the coach should have run up the score if the only other option was to condescendingly play badly. However you've framed the debate into only two options, either win by the largest margin possible or be patronizing and play "badly" on purpose. Those weren't his only options and I choose to believe that no coach is stupid enough to believe that. There are several other options. He knew going into the game the level disparity. He could have started three or four bench players and gave them some playing and learning time with time with the starters. He could have had his frontline and backline switch positions and have the bigger girls work on their outside shots and the smaller girls work on rebounding, which they probably don't get to do as much during a game with similarly skilled opponents and improved skills that may actually make them better. He could have run the high risk plays and the plays he knew were his teams weaker ones so they could get better. Instead he went with the lowest easiest route for a big number. As I said he is a school coach in name only but a procoach wannabe failure at heart who is a tryhard trying to make up for the fact he isn't where he thinks he should be.

A high school coach does so much more than rack up stats. He teaches youth how to interact with each other using skills they develop. In every game their are winners and losers. However, if the losers are pushed out of relevance you are going to find less and less competition and greater disparities as there becomes less bridges between skill gaps.

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the coach, when you know next to nothing about him.

And like I said, to me it's a hell of a lot more insulting if I'm playing a game where my opponent isn't taking me seriously. I mean let's be honest. The other team was absolute shit if they could only get 2 points, so even if they did what you said, the game would have still been a stomp. I mentioned them having to purposely play badly because that would have been the only way for the score not to be so lopsided. The coach was really in a no-win situation as when there is such a big skill difference between teams, you could make an argument that anything he does was in "bad sportsmanship".

[ritt works hard fo da chickens]

Jan 17, 2015 19:30:11 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Jan 17, 2015 19:03:29 GMT -5 ritt works hard fo da chickens said:

Yes it is a pathetic story and a terrible message to send to youth but for the exact opposite reasons you state.

I'd agree with you that the coach should have run up the score if the only other option was to condescendingly play badly. However you've framed the debate into only two options, either win by the largest margin possible or be patronizing and play "badly" on purpose. Those weren't his only options and I choose to believe that no coach is stupid enough to believe that. There are several other options. He knew going into the game the level disparity. He could have started three or four bench players and gave them some playing and learning time with time with the starters. He could have had his frontline and backline switch positions and have the bigger girls work on their outside shots and the smaller girls work on rebounding, which they probably don't get to do as much during a game with similarly skilled opponents and improved skills that may actually make them better. He could have run the high risk plays and the plays he knew were his teams weaker ones so they could get better. Instead he went with the lowest easiest route for a big number. As I said he is a school coach in name only but a procoach wannabe failure at heart who is a tryhard trying to make up for the fact he isn't where he thinks he should be.

A high school coach does so much more than rack up stats. He teaches youth how to interact with each other using skills they develop. In every game their are winners and losers. However, if the losers are pushed out of relevance you are going to find less and less competition and greater disparities as there becomes less bridges between skill gaps.

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the coach, when you know next to nothing about him.

And like I said, to me it's a hell of a lot more insulting if I'm playing a game where my opponent isn't taking me seriously. I mean let's be honest. The other team was absolute shit if they could only get 2 points, so even if they did what you said, the game would have still been a stomp. I mentioned them having to purposely play badly because that would have been the only way for the score not to be so lopsided. The coach was really in a no-win situation as when there is such a big skill difference between teams, you could make an argument that anything he does was in "bad sportsmanship".

No not anything would have been bad sportsmanship. I even listed several examples that aren't intentionally playing badly but also aren't driving for stats. You just keep reducing it to an either/or situation. It's not, there are grey areas, where you aren't throwing the game but you also aren't full court pressing and playing your starters through a ridiculous mismatch. I mean let's take it to an extreme, if Kobe Bryant shows up at a make-a-wish basketball camp and jumps into a game should he block every shot, steal the ball from the cripples, and dunk because to do less than his best is condescending? Or instead he could set up plays for some of the kids, do some trick dribbling and and crazy passes, he doesn't have to be a lazy condescending ass and can still show off a little. I admit I am making assumptions on the coach but I have seen coaches that are great and ones like I described. I don't know any great coaches at the learning levels that ran up scores.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Jan 17, 2015 19:30:11 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Jan 17, 2015 19:03:29 GMT -5 ritt works hard fo da chickens said:

Yes it is a pathetic story and a terrible message to send to youth but for the exact opposite reasons you state.

I'd agree with you that the coach should have run up the score if the only other option was to condescendingly play badly. However you've framed the debate into only two options, either win by the largest margin possible or be patronizing and play "badly" on purpose. Those weren't his only options and I choose to believe that no coach is stupid enough to believe that. There are several other options. He knew going into the game the level disparity. He could have started three or four bench players and gave them some playing and learning time with time with the starters. He could have had his frontline and backline switch positions and have the bigger girls work on their outside shots and the smaller girls work on rebounding, which they probably don't get to do as much during a game with similarly skilled opponents and improved skills that may actually make them better. He could have run the high risk plays and the plays he knew were his teams weaker ones so they could get better. Instead he went with the lowest easiest route for a big number. As I said he is a school coach in name only but a procoach wannabe failure at heart who is a tryhard trying to make up for the fact he isn't where he thinks he should be.

A high school coach does so much more than rack up stats. He teaches youth how to interact with each other using skills they develop. In every game their are winners and losers. However, if the losers are pushed out of relevance you are going to find less and less competition and greater disparities as there becomes less bridges between skill gaps.

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the coach, when you know next to nothing about him.

And like I said, to me it's a hell of a lot more insulting if I'm playing a game where my opponent isn't taking me seriously. I mean let's be honest. The other team was absolute shit if they could only get 2 points, so even if they did what you said, the game would have still been a stomp. I mentioned them having to purposely play badly because that would have been the only way for the score not to be so lopsided. The coach was really in a no-win situation as when there is such a big skill difference between teams, you could make an argument that anything he does was in "bad sportsmanship".

Again, here is a list of things that could have been done that does not involve patronizing the other team:

- Pull the starters as soon as it got ugly, not when they had a triple digit lead
- Stop the full court press (which it seems they never did) and just play half court defense
- Stop shooting three pointers (which they kept doing all game long) and stick to inside play and mid-range jumpers

I already mentioned, in the next game his kid coached the team. It was also a blow out but so far it seems that no one is criticizing how the kid coached the game because while his players never slacked off and played hard all game long, they did not treat the other game like a video game where running up the score insults no one.

[Lila]

Ah, memories of my HS varsity team being this essentially. By the time fourth quarter rolled around, everyone on the team was just relaxing and going easy.

[Dr. T is an alien]

I need to wash away the taste this stupid argument about whether or not sportmanship matters in high school sports.




Oh, the feels! I'm crying again!

[Unaffiliated]

I don't know enough about basketball to talk about the different tactical methods that could have been used, but I still don't see the problem with running up the score.

To me, the score does not tell the entire story of the match, what actually goes on in court tells most of the story. Whatever happened, it was still going to be a show of complete dominance by the winning team. I don't see one case being more of bullying than the other. Even if all the steps were taken to deliberately not make the score as high as possible, it's still embarrassing for the losing team whether it was 161-2 or 40-2.

[Main Eventer]

I bet that was an awkward pizza party for the losing team after the game.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Jan 17, 2015 20:14:50 GMT -5 Unaffiliated said:

I don't know enough about basketball to talk about the different tactical methods that could have been used, but I still don't see the problem with running up the score.

To me, the score does not tell the entire story of the match, what actually goes on in court tells most of the story. Whatever happened, it was still going to be a show of complete dominance by the winning team. I don't see one case being more of bullying than the other. Even if all the steps were taken to deliberately not make the score as high as possible, it's still embarrassing for the losing team whether it was 161-2 or 40-2.

There is a difference, though. Losing 40-2 would suck and I don't doubt that the losing team would be embarrassed about it, but losing 161-2 is the equivalent of the other team's players routinely knocking your kids down and tea-bagging or dramatically dry humping them throughout the game. I don't want that kind of behavior to be an acceptable practice. It is not a pro league. Winning is just as important as how you win, if not less so.