NationStates Jolt Archive

I stumbled upon this article just as I was checking my e-mail. It basically states that with a victory of 100-0 they should forfeit the win because it was not a fair match up (my thoughts on this after). To me this seems strange and rather silly, it's just a game, and the girls from the losing side didnt dwell on the loss (or so the article says), so why make the team that was clearly superior in skill lose simply because it doesnt seem fair for them to win by so much? Also, I do not belive the coach should be fired because his team won, which is exactly what he is supposed to make it do.

I offer this little comparison, while my knowledge of sports isnt that great, my military know how will help.

Lets say there is a war. Both sides are equal in numbers, both sides know how to fight. One side wins without losing a soldier. Would we sentence the commanding general to death because he did his job? Would we say sorry to the losing side and say they won the war just so they dont feel bad?

Now I know the example is slightly extreme, but I believe it is needed to show just how silly this would be in any other situation, like in NASCAR, or UFC.

What do you think NSG? Poll Coming


Link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090122/sports/20090122_bkbl100_point_shutout_1)

I read that story too and forgot it as soon as I could, because it made absolutely no sense.

"A Christ-like approach to competition"

That is, if you're slapped on the left cheek, expose your right one for a pimp slap.

Ironically, in some way, it was a Christian approach, in that after being slapped once, they were then slapped 99 more times.

A more accurate analogy might be that two sides of equal numbers show up to a war and Army A suffers no injuries, quickly overwhelms Army B, and then, once Army B's weapons have been confiscated and their valuables stripped from them, Army A rounds Army B up in a barn and shoots every soldier in the head.

Ironically, in some way, it was a Christian approach, in that after being slapped once, they were then slapped 99 more times.

Lol.

As far as the event goes, yes I saw the news piece, and no, I believe in brutal competition. If they lost 100-0, then they deserved to lose 100-0.

LOL Ryadh and Vault. I just couldnt belive it...

A more accurate analogy might be that two sides of equal numbers show up to a war and Army A suffers no injuries, quickly overwhelms Army B, and then, once Army B's weapons have been confiscated and their valuables stripped from them, Army A rounds Army B up in a barn and shoots every soldier in the head.But the other team didn't forfeit did they?

That's what I don't get. It's not like one team can just suddenly say, "We win." It's up to the other coach to decide, "We forfeit. Good game."

It's not like the losers tried to forfeit, and the other team shouted obscenities and curb-stomped them.

To quote a now-fired NFL coach, "you play to win the game." However, as a coach of a minor league football team told me, "there's a code to this."

If the winning side weren't firing 3-pointers and pressing hard (which it's suggested they did even when they were approaching 100 points), I'd say there was no reason to apologise or forfeit the game or anything. However, from what I've read, the team looked like a team that was trying to run up the score.

I don't think the coach should be fired or formally reprimanded. I don't think he should have been publicly chided. But he should have gotten a private reminder of why you shouldn't run up the score.

I would say it would be worse.

the message a forfeit would say is.
"We don't even consider this a game, that's how bad [the other team] was."

Instead, I would treat the other team to dinner, especially if it's their first time.

It's not like the losers tried to forfeit, and the other team shouted obscenities and curb-stomped them.
Aw now I wanna curb-stomp someone!

I think the coach's win was in poor taste (if you're owning an opposing team, you are supposed to back off, its just good sportsmanship) but poor taste does not a pink slip make.

I stumbled upon this article just as I was checking my e-mail. It basically states that with a victory of 100-0 they should forfeit the win because it was not a fair match up (my thoughts on this after). To me this seems strange and rather silly, it's just a game, and the girls from the losing side didnt dwell on the loss (or so the article says), so why make the team that was clearly superior in skill lose simply because it doesnt seem fair for them to win by so much? Also, I do not belive the coach should be fired because his team won, which is exactly what he is supposed to make it do.

I offer this little comparison, while my knowledge of sports isnt that great, my military know how will help.

Lets say there is a war. Both sides are equal in numbers, both sides know how to fight. One side wins without losing a soldier. Would we sentence the commanding general to death because he did his job? Would we say sorry to the losing side and say they won the war just so they dont feel bad?

Now I know the example is slightly extreme, but I believe it is needed to show just how silly this would be in any other situation, like in NASCAR, or UFC.

What do you think NSG? Poll Coming


Link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090122/sports/20090122_bkbl100_point_shutout_1)

There is something of a coaching etiquette in academic sports. It's usually considered good form to pull the starting line up and send in the B team once the score is out of hand. I didn't see any mention of whether or not he did this, if he did, then he did nothing wrong.

Also, this is a Christian school. While such showboating is entirely at home in the NBA or a Harlem Globetrotters game, it's really inappropriate here. There's no hat out there that says "Whose Ass Would Jesus Whip?"

Aw now I wanna curb-stomp someone!

I think the coach's win was in poor taste (if you're owning an opposing team, you are supposed to back off, its just good sportsmanship) but poor taste does not a pink slip make.How exactly do you back off without making it obvious? I suppose at half time when it was 59-0 they could have taken the ball and dribbled it in the corner. Or should they have 'let' the other team get a few scores on the board. I am genuinely confused about the idea of backing off in a sport. I understand it to an extent, like how in football if the team is up and can knell on the ball they will, instead of trying to get another score. But this kind of backing off strikes me as knelling on the ball (so to speak) for an entire half of the game at least.

Personally I think the coach of the losing team should have had the sense to forfeit.

There is something of a coaching etiquette in academic sports. It's usually considered good form to pull the starting line up and send in the B team once the score is out of hand. I didn't see any mention of whether or not he did this, if he did, then he did nothing wrong.
... I honestly thought they did that to allow everyone a chance to play.

and this is the first time I'm hearing of such a 'code'...

How exactly do you back off without making it obvious?
Why does it have to be unobvious? I thought their win was pretty obvious :P

They could just shoot at the backboard and miss all their shots, take their time, pass a lot, etc.

How exactly do you back off without making it obvious? I suppose at half time when it was 59-0 they could have taken the ball and dribbled it in the corner. Or should they have 'let' the other team get a few scores on the board. I am genuinely confused about the idea of backing off in a sport. I understand it to an extent, like how in football if the team is up and can knell on the ball they will, instead of trying to get another score. But this kind of backing off strikes me as knelling on the ball (so to speak) for an entire half of the game at least.

Personally I think the coach of the losing team should have had the sense to forfeit.
pull back on the three pointers.
Put in your second or third stringers.
start making some stupid mistakes... like passing the ball close enough for the other team to steal.
Fake an injury
Start getting some fouls in...

there are ways to tip the balance. but which would be worse? finding out you lost to an obviously superior team...
or finding out that... win or lose, the other team held back when playing against you?

Why does it have to be unobvious? I thought their win was pretty obvious :P

They could just shoot at the backboard and miss all their shots, take their time, pass a lot, etc.

I dunno... If I was on the other team, that would be more... insulting to me. like the other team was just 'toying' with me.

There is something of a coaching etiquette in academic sports. It's usually considered good form to pull the starting line up and send in the B team once the score is out of hand. I didn't see any mention of whether or not he did this, if he did, then he did nothing wrong.

Also, this is a Christian school. While such showboating is entirely at home in the NBA or a Harlem Globetrotters game, it's really inappropriate here. There's no hat out there that says "Whose Ass Would Jesus Whip?"

In all honesty I think I have just discovered the reason I do not watch any sports. No, Im not joking, but your explination simply put into words the reason I dont watch them, thank you, now for my reply.

Isnt the point of a game to win? I know that is over simplified, but why would you intentionally let someone gain ground? I do remember this sort of thing in Elementary School Volleyball, but that was not Grade 12 or Freshman year, by the age in question the players should be mature enough to handle the fact that they lost, and move on, as the article said they did. Just as the other team should be mature enough to know that they won against a team that clearly wasnt up to it in skill. I again re-interate how silly this would be in several other sports/fighting, imagine boxing where Person A knocks out Person B in one shot, then apologizes and lets themself get knocked out to make it fair.

I dunno... If I was on the other team, that would be more... insulting to me. like the other team was just 'toying' with me.

I play soccer, and I've been on teams that have done this to other teams before. It is not condescending because nothing is spoken. Its an agreement reached mutually because everyone knows that there are different skill levels on the field. Its a matter of courtesy, as I see it.

I dunno... If I was on the other team, that would be more... insulting to me. like the other team was just 'toying' with me.Exactly, I'd find it far more insulting that they needed to pull back and ease up on us.

It's a game. Someone has to lose. If the other team is considering dicking around to preserve some pseudo sense of honor because they are winning, then you should forfeit. Forfeiting would have been ten times more mature and honorable then having the other team ease up. Although it should be noted that the opposing team handled the loss well by all accounts, so it's a wonder as to why this is an issue to begin with.

I play soccer, and I've been on teams that have done this to other teams before. It is not condescending because nothing is spoken. Its an agreement reached mutually because everyone knows that there are different skill levels on the field. Its a matter of courtesy, as I see it.

but there's a difference between making it obvious and being subtle... your post kinda sounded like it was saying to pull back and be obvious about it.

The important thing is that he learnt a lesson.

They were going for the 100-0. They had a full court press on and were launching 3s way into the fourth quarter, until they hit 100. Then they backed off and ran out the clock. The coach was clearly trying to get that 100-0 to get himself and his team in the newspaper. It is possible to win a game without embarassing the other team by running up the score. It should have been fairly apparent after halftime that this team they were playing was not legitimate competition, and they should not have continued to play the game as though they were. This isn't a professional sports team who are paid to play and win; it's a high school girls' basketball team. Not only that, it's a high school girls' basketball team from a school with a total of 20 girls, and a school that specializes in students with learning disabilities. There's no honor in intentionally inflicting embarassment on a weakling, and it was right to fire this coach for his selfish and immature attempt to grab headlines.

The important thing is that he learnt a lesson.

What lesson?

They were going for the 100-0. They had a full court press on and were launching 3s way into the fourth quarter, until they hit 100. Then they backed off and ran out the clock. The coach was clearly trying to get that 100-0 to get himself and his team in the newspaper. It is possible to win a game without embarassing the other team by running up the score. It should have been fairly apparent after halftime that this team they were playing was not legitimate competition, and they should not have continued to play the game as though they were. This isn't a professional sports team who are paid to play and win; it's a high school girls' basketball team. Not only that, it's a high school girls' basketball team from a school with a total of 20 girls, and a school that specializes in students with learning disabilities. There's no honor in intentionally inflicting embarassment on a weakling, and it was right to fire this coach for his selfish and immature attempt to grab headlines.

just a side point. many athletic scholarships look at their skills on the court. so for many of these High School Girls who want to get into college on an athletic scholoarship, showing their skills is important.

so in effect, there is some return if one plays 'well'.

What lesson?

I dunno. "Don't mess with Texas"?

I agree it was extremely unsporty, but it's not the coach's fault that teams of wildly varying levels were put one against another.

The sad (funny?) part in all of this is that the 100 point whomping probably would have gone unnoticed if not for the apology making it into the news.

To paraphrase a line from Coach Carter: "Before, we knew you were failing algebra. Now the whole world knows you're failing algebra."

I'm playing in a Blood Bowl league right now (A Games Workshop board game - kind of a mix of Gridiron and Rugby in a fantasy setting). I happen to be rather good at it.

In my last three games, I've been up against two newbies and a guy who hasn't played in five years. Scores respectively 4-0, 5-0 and 5-1 to me, with most scoring in the game being roughly equivalent to soccer (i.e. 1-1 and 1-0 scores being common).

I could have "taken it easy" on the new guys. But if I had, I'd've been insulting their skills and dishonoring their commitment to the game. Instead, I played as hard as I could, but then gave each a set of hints and tips about how to better use their teams.

This coach and his team did NOTHING wrong. They played to the best of their ability and in so doing honoured the game and their opponents. Kudos to the Covenant school for their victory. And kudos to the Dallas Academy girls for continuing to play and do the best they could even in that sort of situation.

This sort of reminds me of Israel-Palestine.

just a side point. many athletic scholarships look at their skills on the court. so for many of these High School Girls who want to get into college on an athletic scholoarship, showing their skills is important.


That's not a valid argument in this era. Most scouting takes place during summer AAU ball, simply that's because where there's the highest concentration of talent. Interscholastic games are very rarely attended by coaches or scouts.

The game I attended Friday night was notable in part because it WAS attended by a major college coach (Indiana University's Tom Crean)...incidentally, you may have seen it on SportsCenter Saturday morning: it was the game with the full-court buzzer-beater three-pointer. Went on to win 57-50, #1 ranked Princeton (my old high school) beating #2 ranked Washington (the home team).

There is something of a coaching etiquette in academic sports. It's usually considered good form to pull the starting line up and send in the B team once the score is out of hand. I didn't see any mention of whether or not he did this, if he did, then he did nothing wrong.

Also, this is a Christian school. While such showboating is entirely at home in the NBA or a Harlem Globetrotters game, it's really inappropriate here. There's no hat out there that says "Whose Ass Would Jesus Whip?"

Now I have to make one.

just a side point. many athletic scholarships look at their skills on the court. so for many of these High School Girls who want to get into college on an athletic scholoarship, showing their skills is important.

so in effect, there is some return if one plays 'well'.

Scouts are absolutely not going to be at a game that features a team that has not won a single game in four years. Scouts know that they will not see an accurate portrayal of skill in a game like that.

I'm playing in a Blood Bowl league right now (A Games Workshop board game - kind of a mix of Gridiron and Rugby in a fantasy setting). I happen to be rather good at it.

I've been playing 40k for 8 years, and two weeks ago at the LA Battle Bunker was the first time I've even seen a board set up for Blood Bowl.

I agree it was extremely unsporty, but it's not the coach's fault that teams of wildly varying levels were put one against another.

It is the coach's fault for having the full court press on well into the fourth quarter of a 80+ point lead (and shutout, which is unheard of in basketball). The coach coached the team to the 100-0 game. It's not his fault that the other team was no match for his team, but it was his fault for pursuing the 100-0 score. In a way, I'd have an easier time swallowing a 102-0 or 121-0 game than 100-0, because in those cases it wouldn't be so transparent what the coach was doing.

Personally I think the coach of the losing team should have had the sense to forfeit.

You don't forfeit games. I keep seeing this mentioned, so I want to clear it up here. As both an avid sports fan and a former prep and college sports reporter, I can tell you: unless you do not have enough players to actually play the game, you do not forfeit. A team would not think of forfeiting just because it was getting slaughtered.

That's why often in preps at least there's a mercy rule--play ends early in baseball/softball if a team is up by a certain number of runs. Sometimes a game will be called at the half if a team is being killed like this one was. Obviously, the officials didn't do that--but to expect the losing team to forfeit is ridiculous. It's far more humiliating to forfeit than get routed 100-0.

... I honestly thought they did that to allow everyone a chance to play.

and this is the first time I'm hearing of such a 'code'...

Well, it is to give everyone a chance to play--once the outcome is certain. The losing team will often put its scrubs in, too, to give them practice.

there are ways to tip the balance. but which would be worse? finding out you lost to an obviously superior team...
or finding out that... win or lose, the other team held back when playing against you?

They already showed they were superior with the first 50 or 60 unanswered points. There's no reason to press and pad stats after that--the other team isn't going to wonder.

I again re-interate how silly this would be in several other sports/fighting, imagine boxing where Person A knocks out Person B in one shot, then apologizes and lets themself get knocked out to make it fair.

You keep skewing the analogy. The other boxer isn't apologizing and letting himself get knocked out--he's just not beating the body until it ceases to resemble a human being. No one is saying they should have let the other team win, or even score--they just should have stopped attacking. They sacked the town, there was no need to burn everyone in it alive.

You don't forfeit games. I keep seeing this mentioned, so I want to clear it up here. As both an avid sports fan and a former prep and college sports reporter, I can tell you: unless you do not have enough players to actually play the game, you do not forfeit. A team would not think of forfeiting just because it was getting slaughtered.

That's why often in preps at least there's a mercy rule--play ends early in baseball/softball if a team is up by a certain number of runs. Sometimes a game will be called at the half if a team is being killed like this one was. Obviously, the officials didn't do that--but to expect the losing team to forfeit is ridiculous. It's far more humiliating to forfeit than get routed 100-0.I think it is far more humiliating to lose 100-0 and have it garner national attention, then to know when it is grossly mismatched and forfeit.

I am from Dallas Let me explain something about the academy, it is a private school for kids with learning disabilities. most of the disabilities are mild like ADD, but there a few motor disabilities and the school has a policy any child who wants to be on the team is on the team. when my middle school played them our coaches told us to let them get a touch down and was playing his fourth string (American football).

100-0, and the (losing) girls were still playing? Man, talk about the 'Never Give Up' attitude. I find that very admirable.

I am from Dallas Let me explain something about the academy, it is a private school for kids with learning disabilities. most of the disabilities are mild like ADD, but there a few motor disabilities and the school has a policy any child who wants to be on the team is on the team. when my middle school played them our coaches told us to let them get a touch down and was playing his fourth string (American football).I feel like that detail should have been put in the article somewhere. Now I just feel like an asshole.

I'm playing in a Blood Bowl league right now (A Games Workshop board game - kind of a mix of Gridiron and Rugby in a fantasy setting). I happen to be rather good at it.

In my last three games, I've been up against two newbies and a guy who hasn't played in five years. Scores respectively 4-0, 5-0 and 5-1 to me, with most scoring in the game being roughly equivalent to soccer (i.e. 1-1 and 1-0 scores being common).

I could have "taken it easy" on the new guys. But if I had, I'd've been insulting their skills and dishonoring their commitment to the game. Instead, I played as hard as I could, but then gave each a set of hints and tips about how to better use their teams.

This coach and his team did NOTHING wrong. They played to the best of their ability and in so doing honoured the game and their opponents. Kudos to the Covenant school for their victory. And kudos to the Dallas Academy girls for continuing to play and do the best they could even in that sort of situation.

That sums up my stance, pretty much. (which, for the record, I posted in another thread on this)

I feel like that detail should have been put in the article somewhere. Now I just feel like an asshole.

It is in the article.

Dallas Academy has eight girls on its varsity team and about 20 girls in its high school. It is winless over the last four seasons. The academy boasts of its small class sizes and specializes in teaching students struggling with "learning differences," such as short attention spans or dyslexia.

100-0. lol.

It is in the article.Now I feel like an asshole with reading comprehension problems. Thanks a lot.

Although what the article mentions (dyslexia/short attention spans) doesn't seem like it would affect one's ability to play a sport.

Now I feel like an asshole with reading comprehension problems. Thanks a lot.

Although what the article mentions (dyslexia/short attention spans) doesn't seem like it would affect one's ability to play a sport.

:P

No, I don't think that has much to do with it. I think the whole "20 senior girls" thing has more to do with it. Unless they're all top athletes with dyslexia, a pool of 20 high school girls from which to choose eight players is going to make a crappy team.

:P

No, I don't think that has much to do with it. I think the whole "20 senior girls" thing has more to do with it. Unless they're all top athletes with dyslexia, a pool of 20 high school girls from which to choose eight players is going to make a crappy team.That looks like it is probably the case.

On a random note, I have enough mental conditions that I spent 2nd through 7th grade in alternative education, yet I also won a 2-on-1 badminton match as the 1. It seems odd that the losing team didn't get ANY baskets...

There's no hat out there that says "Whose Ass Would Jesus Whip?"

Yet.

Oh for the love of....Jeez...why don't we just give everyone a trophy so no one feeling's get hurt? If your team sucks so bad that you lost by 100 points, then guess what...YOU SUCK! So instead of bitching about how bad the other team beaten your ass, train harder, and learn how to actually work together as a team to win!

Oh for the love of....Jeez...why don't we just give everyone a trophy so no one feeling's get hurt? If your team sucks so bad that you lost by 100 points, then guess what...YOU SUCK! So instead of bitching about how bad the other team beaten your ass, train harder, and learn how to actually work together as a team to win!

Or stop keeping track of the score, I mean who cares if anyone wins... or is that defeating the point?

I think the losing team's coach should be fired, why the hell would you put your team up against someone so much better? I mean it would be understandable if they lost like 100-30 or something, but the other team was so much better, it seems hard to believe that the opposing coach didn't know, or specifically set it up as a B-side (or c-side) game...

I've been playing 40k for 8 years, and two weeks ago at the LA Battle Bunker was the first time I've even seen a board set up for Blood Bowl.

It's pretty big here in Oz. Particularly here in Perth; our BRAWL league is the largest in the Southern Hemisphere.

After about the first 60 points or so, I would have suggested putting the ball away and playing Twister instead. *nod*

I think the losing team's coach should be fired, why the hell would you put your team up against someone so much better? I mean it would be understandable if they lost like 100-30 or something, but the other team was so much better, it seems hard to believe that the opposing coach didn't know, or specifically set it up as a B-side (or c-side) game...

The coach doesn't decide who a team plays, just FYI. The team should probably be moved to a different area of competition against other smaller teams though.

Wasn't the losing team made up of "Special" kids? j/w

Now I feel like an asshole with reading comprehension problems. Thanks a lot.

Although what the article mentions (dyslexia/short attention spans) doesn't seem like it would affect one's ability to play a sport.

the article does do a piss poor job of explaining it.
you have to know about the school to understand why the coach was apologizing. to be honest I think the writer of the article was trying to make the coach look like more of a jackass.

Wasn't the losing team made up of "Special" kids? j/w

pretty much. though it is at the mild end of the spectrum. some 80% of the students go on to at least a trade school though.

Oh for the love of....Jeez...why don't we just give everyone a trophy so no one feeling's get hurt? If your team sucks so bad that you lost by 100 points, then guess what...YOU SUCK! So instead of bitching about how bad the other team beaten your ass, train harder, and learn how to actually work together as a team to win!

I was hoping I wouldn't be the only person to think this is the case. The other team sucked, the other team lost. Work harder, get better. I think Covenant is TAPPS (I am pretty sure they are), but my high school was TAPPS 5A, and they would run up the score whenever possible. I played football and we did the same thing. We would play against Gainesville State, a "educational correction facility", and even with our fourth team in it would be a total blow out if not shut down. So they left us on the first team in so that we got a full speed practice.

As someone who played high school and college football, I would be insulted if another team held back because they were beating us. Yeah, in pee wee level there may be an "honor code" or some such nonsense, but at the high school and higher level, you win, and thats really all that matters.

Besides, in my own humble personal experience...The Christian (my school was Catholic) way of playing sports is to make sure that while you have your foot on the throat of your opponent and driving the ball down their throat, you remind them that Jesus loves them and forgives them of their sins.

The coach doesn't decide who a team plays, just FYI. The team should probably be moved to a different area of competition against other smaller teams though.

Compared to UIL, TAPPS is pretty small so you play whoever else is in TAPPS within a respectable distance, and the occasional public school. We'd play schools from Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Back in the late eighties/early nineties, Jesuit had a bad ass football team that had to travel out of state to find games.

Compared to UIL, TAPPS is pretty small so you play whoever else is in TAPPS within a respectable distance, and the occasional public school. We'd play schools from Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Back in the late eighties/early nineties, Jesuit had a bad ass football team that had to travel out of state to find games.

Jesuit lol the high school renown for using date rape drugs.

Jesuit lol the high school renown for using date rape drugs.

Wouldn't be surprised. We only played them once, when I was a freshman, and I don't really remember the game all that well. I do remember it being pretty close.

Wouldn't be surprised. We only played them once, when I was a freshman, and I don't really remember the game all that well.

Just ask the girls from Hockaday. Jesuit is all a bunch of snotty pricks. almost as bad as the one time I dated a girl from Ursuline.

Wouldn't be surprised. We only played them once, when I was a freshman, and I don't really remember the game all that well. I do remember it being pretty close.

There's a reason you don't remember the game all that well. :eek:

There's a reason you don't remember the game all that well. :eek:

yeah he came too after the game hoping the reason his ass hurt was just because he had lost the game.

Just ask the girls from Hockaday. Jesuit is all a bunch of snotty pricks. almost as bad as the one time I dated a girl from Ursuline.

Didn't know anyone from Hockaday, lol. But what little I remember from Jesuit, they were a bunch of dicks (literally, being an all boys school. Hence the great sports teams). I wouldn't put it past most of those guys to make a mean rufficolada. I remember when I did a "Spend a Night with the Corps" at A&M, there were two guys from TCA (standard TCA assholes), and one dude from Jesuit who made the TCA guys look like guys I'd want to be my best buds.

We had a healthy rivalry with Lynch...but the TCA game was always a blood bath. We'd play some dirty ball against them.

Look, if this were the NBA or even college hoops, then I'd say okay. But you have a good high school team playing another team that is not only a school built for those with developmental disabilities, but with only 20 kids total, almost one half of them on the basketball team.

However, that wasn't the reason he was fired. The coach was fired because, after the school and the players wished to make a formal request to forfeit the outcome of the game and issued an apology to the other team, the coach offered to forfeit the game but did not apologize for his actions. The school felt that this idea was to the detriment of the team as it made the impression that the only way to play was to win and not have fun.

The analogies to war are ludicrous - this is high school basketball. Not even collegiate. There's a level of gamesmanship every coach is to uphold - if you're up by 59 at the half and the other team has yet to score a point, continuing to shoot threes and not let up on your opponent is a breech of that. It's fine for a coach to want to win, but to do so against a hapless opponent without giving them a chance to even compete and then refusing to apologize for it is fair game for a firing.

I think the winning side is insulting their rivals even more heavily.

from the link in the OP:

The winning school now says it wants to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the margin of victory.

"It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened," the head of the school said Thursday on The Covenant School's website. He added that Covenant has made "a formal request to forfeit the game recognizing that a victory without honour is a great loss."
Basically they're saying "you're so lowly, that it is dishonourable to flatten you at sports". Meh.:p

Now I feel like an asshole with reading comprehension problems. Thanks a lot.

Although what the article mentions (dyslexia/short attention spans) doesn't seem like it would affect one's ability to play a sport.

I doubt it affects their ability to shoot or pass, but I imagine it impacts their ability to learn set plays (such as what to do when the other team has the full court press on).

Its always said that a sports team will not improve unless it plays better opposition, but this seems a little too one sided. In a lot of cricket matches (even international warm up games) batsmen will 'retire' once they score a certain amount of runs. It gives the opposition a chance to bowl at a great player without being totally demoralised when he bats all day.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but perhaps if each scorer was limited to 5 baskets before they were replaced it would have been a more meaningful contest

The coach doesn't decide who a team plays, just FYI. The team should probably be moved to a different area of competition against other smaller teams though.

Yes, I find it hard to believe that the coach has no decision making ability for what teams they play, even if that means that he has to convince people to move him into a different league. The fact that they've lost every game for what, four years, suggests maybe its (past) time to consider doing so.

I think I'd me more embarrased to get a few pity points and know that my opponents aren't even trying than I would if I lost 100-0.

Should the winning coach be fired? NO

Should the winning team forfeit the win? NO

Should the winning team apologize? NO

Obviously the losing team is not even close to being competetive and the decision to enter a team in a competetive league rests solely at the schools' administration level. I blame them for making a very bad decision. The losing team couldn't even register a single point via the free throw (assuming that the winning team was commiting fouls). How bad is that?

Is the coach of the losing team even qualified for teaching basketball skills? Doubtful.

What can the losing team learn from this experience? That they shouldn't be playing basketball competetively.

the coach needed to be fired.

the administration of the school issued an apology and the coach publicly disagreed with them. he had to go.

the administration of the school issued an apology and the coach publicly disagreed with them. he had to go.

General Shinseki's ears are burning.

Yes, I find it hard to believe that the coach has no decision making ability for what teams they play, even if that means that he has to convince people to move him into a different league.

He can make a plea, sure, but in almost every school system the final decision of who to schedule always rests with the school administration.

Furthermore, interscholastic athletic schedules are set by contracts, often made several years in advance. At the time the contract was set, perhaps the two schools' teams were indeed of roughly equal caliber.

There is something of a coaching etiquette in academic sports. It's usually considered good form to pull the starting line up and send in the B team once the score is out of hand. I didn't see any mention of whether or not he did this, if he did, then he did nothing wrong.

Also, this is a Christian school. While such showboating is entirely at home in the NBA or a Harlem Globetrotters game, it's really inappropriate here. There's no hat out there that says "Whose Ass Would Jesus Whip?"

From what I've seen of the story he left his starters in well into the 3rd quarter.

how is it a competition if the winner gets kicked out for being too good?
I mean fair enough for F1 racing Schumacker (or however you spell it) was winning constantly and it got boring fast, now it's Alonso i think. No one likes seeing a winner win all the time, but you can't chuck them out because they're too good. you can still learn alot from people who win all the time.

Clearly should have stopped at 99.

Even if there was no competition, the winning team shouldn't have to forfeit. Not their fault for being too good.

"On a personal note, I told the coach of the losing team how much I admire their girls for continuing to compete against all odds," Burleson said. "They showed much more character than the coach that allowed that score to get out of hand. It's up to the coach to control the outcome."

Sure, that's good of them. But the winning coach did nothing wrong either. I don't understand how these people think.

Sure, that's good of them. But the winning coach did nothing wrong either. I don't understand how these people think.

What's not to get? He continued to coach the game as if it was tightly contested, rather than a blowout shutout. That's disrespectful. These girls aren't professionals; they're high school students at a school specializing in learning disabilities. Where's the honor in running up the score until it's a nice even 100-0, then letting up? Perhaps if they had played the entire game full throttle you could have a point, but it is transparent from the way they played once the 100-0 score was achieved that the sole intent was to humiliate. I, frankly, don't understand how you people who think this is all fine think.

He can make a plea, sure, but in almost every school system the final decision of who to schedule always rests with the school administration.

and a competent administer would listen to the person with the expertise and know how, blame lies somewhere on the losing team.

Furthermore, interscholastic athletic schedules are set by contracts, often made several years in advance. At the time the contract was set, perhaps the two schools' teams were indeed of roughly equal caliber.

meh, only, as the other poster pointed out you play in a very strict, competitive league. In high school I played rugby, and we were basically unaffiliated with the school, so the coach set everything up between the other coaches, we played against people halfway across the state. We were part of a league and played fairly competitive games (for a sport that was basically new at the HS level here), practiced everyday, etc. That said, if we were winning by a bit, the B-side would go in, but that was purely to give them practice as they were usually freshmen or sophomores who needed more experience, not because we wanted to be nice.

What's not to get? He continued to coach the game as if it was tightly contested, rather than a blowout shutout. That's disrespectful. These girls aren't professionals; they're high school students at a school specializing in learning disabilities. Where's the honor in running up the score until it's a nice even 100-0, then letting up? Perhaps if they had played the entire game full throttle you could have a point, but it is transparent from the way they played once the 100-0 score was achieved that the sole intent was to humiliate. I, frankly, don't understand how you people who think this is all fine think.

Easy, no one gets hurt if the game is played right, even in this case 100-0, no one was hurt. I don't take the score to mean humiliation, more an exposition of the winning team's skill. Therefore, everything is fine. I'm not sure what you're getting at by the "honor" you bring up, I don't see how there is a universally accepted honorable thing to do in this case, many people would consider playing against them to full force more honorable than letting up when the other team is losing.

After about the first 60 points or so, I would have suggested putting the ball away and playing Twister instead. *nod*

... now that game, I would've watched.

Two Female basketball teams playing twister... :D

:P

No, I don't think that has much to do with it. I think the whole "20 senior girls" thing has more to do with it. Unless they're all top athletes with dyslexia, a pool of 20 high school girls from which to choose eight players is going to make a crappy team.
Well, then maybe the winning team was trying to pull back, but they just couldn't manage it?
"Oh come on, damn it. How can they fail to get a basket when I told the entire team to spend the first 3 minutes of the fourth quarter untying and retying their shoes?"

Put another way. Iirc the guy played his starters all the way through the first three quarters. How do you feel sitting on the bench as a backup at half-time when it's 50-0 or whatever and still not get put on?

It was the perfect opportunity for him to get the backups some playing time and experience, instead he kept pushing his starters out there to rack up a ridiculously lopsided score.

Easy, no one gets hurt if the game is played right, even in this case 100-0, no one was hurt. I don't take the score to mean humiliation, more an exposition of the winning team's skill. Therefore, everything is fine. I'm not sure what you're getting at by the "honor" you bring up, I don't see how there is a universally accepted honorable thing to do in this case, many people would consider playing against them to full force more honorable than letting up when the other team is losing.

Racing to 100-0 then putting on the brakes is not an exposition of anything other than arrogance. If the winning team had either A: played full on for the entire game, or B: let up when the game was clearly out of hand, you might have a point. However, to push like they did past the point the game was clearly over, then to stop suddenly and ease up once that nice, round 100-0 was on the score board, is disgraceful. It is no accident that the score ended up being exactly 100-0 instead of 98-0 or 107-0.

Well, then maybe the winning team was trying to pull back, but they just couldn't manage it?
"Oh come on, damn it. How can they fail to get a basket when I told the entire team to spend the first 3 minutes of the fourth quarter untying and retying their shoes?"

Except it is well documented that the winning team was NOT trying to pull back. They were launching 3s, shooting early in the shot clock, and keeping the full-court press on well into the fourth quarter when the game was out of hand. From all accounts, the coach coached the game like his team was caught in a tight shootout instead of a blowout shutout. There's no room to debate whether the winning team was trying to ease up on the losing team, because based on what every available observation has indicated, they were not.

Honestly, I find being played against even when we're down by an insurmountable margin is less insulting than if the other team is just passing the ball around and acts like they could care less. (This happened quite a bit on my last basketball team, where the composition of players picked by our coach was... questionable, at best.)

Honestly, I find being played against even when we're down by an insurmountable margin is less insulting than if the other team if just passing the ball around and acts like they could care less

So, how would you feel if the team played you while you were down by an insurmountable margin until they reached a nice round figure like 100-0, then started just passing the ball around like they couldn't care less?

As a crappy basketball player and a "second stringer"(me and my best friend were the second stringers :P) that played on a high school basketball team that during the three games it played lost 64-25(We played their less good players who got experience and we had a alright game),104-15(the clock was stop midway through the game) and the other team didn't try that hard, and 98-17 with the clock stop midway once again and the other team not trying very hard I find the people who claim that the other team was better so its the other team problem for being crap are using faultly logic as they never been in the losing side of a game like that. I mean to have a team that is way better then you play at their hardest non-stop and then just stop at 100 and be like meh would be very insulting to me. And no basketball team going to forfeit unless they don't have enough players. Their is a code of honour after all and the point of a game is to have fun and not run up a high score for no reason then because you can.

After the games my team was pretty down about losing and I never forget the other teams that were way better not being jerks about it and only playing at their best when they played agaisnt each other. After all some of the players on the other team were some of the best for their age group in Canada and we were a team that started up two months ago.

So td;dr the other team never toy around with us, but they never tryed to crush us or play their best people or acheive a perfect score before stopping. Thats is insulting and the coach was propely fired IMO.