School Basketball Coach Suspended After His Team Drubbed Opponents 92-4

[Toni]

Causing discomfort to others can be placed on a moral scale. It can be a moral thing or an immoral thing depending on the circumstances. Here's an exercise in morality for Metaphor. Imagine a situation in which causing others discomfort feels like a moral thing and then imagine a situation in which causing others discomfort is an immoral thing. What did you come up with?

This does not help to answer my questions.

Evidently, some people agree that some threshold was crossed by the coach when his team beat another team by a large number of points. This seems to be predicated on the idea that some unnecessary 'discomfort' at the magnitude of the loss was caused, though nobody appears to think it was somehow unethical to win the game, but merely to win by too much.

Does this apply only to high school teams and not collegiate sports? Why or why not?

Did the girls have a moral obligation to play more poorly as well as the coach instructing them to do so? Why or why not?

Does a high school long distance runner have an obligation to do less than her best if she is winning by a large margin? Why or why not?

Is asking a team to perform at less than their best effort a more ethical choice than winning by a large margin? Why? What about an individual?

EDITED: And why is the default assumption that the girls did this primarily to cause discomfort, instead of (as I would expect a sports team to do), playing to the utmost of their ability?

The default assumption is that the coach is an asshole who is much more interested in running up a score than in fair competition.

In a sport such as basketball, there are 5 starting players who are the best and then the second string for substitutions, and a third string, etc. who usually don’t get much play time.

A coach who is interested in fair play abs developing his team abs the skills of all his players would pull his starting players once it became apparent that they were badly outmatching their opponents. Second string goes in. Again, if they are still badly out performing the opponents, either the bench warmers go in OR the coach instructs them to only take shots after X number of passes or only from a certain distance or only the kid who rarely gets a shot: they get all the shots. You do your best to make it a fair match—and to give players who aren’t on the court much more time and the chance to improve. Otherwise, you unnecessarily demoralize your opponents, don’t give your less good players a chance to play and significantly risk injuries to both teams. Demoralized teams sometimes begin to throw a lot of elbows, etc. Players on teams that deliberately run up scores are not improving their skills and are merely learning to be bullies.

In individual races, where the winner is an individual, then yes, your runner gets to go for their best time in every race. Points are awarded to teams based on the number of runners placing high. And if you have an entire team that is much faster than the competition, do be it but you should be looking for more competitive opportunities. And good runners teach other runners, even if they are beating them.

 

[Toni]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

It’s not unusual for one student to regularly blow the curve for any class. The instructor has some choices, though. They can set an absolute grading scale, so if the entire class scores 100, they all get A’s, etc. in more subjective classes, they can grade very gifted students with greater rigor than the rest of the class. I’ve seen that done. I’ve also seen instructors add bonus questions that anyone may attempt but which are intended to give the very gifted student a challenge. And I’ve seen instructors give certain students a different test altogether. A good instructor does not share that they do this with the class and may or may not choose to do so with the especially gifted : Lawrence, I’m only awarding you a B+ on this essay because it is not up to the standard I know you are capable of achieving. Please put greater thought into how you support your major and minor themes…

And so on. I’ve seen that done.

 

[Jarhyn]

I tend to think consistent victories with razor thin margins and wide team coverage denotes the greatest level of skill in the game regardless.

At any rate, I choose to respond with denial, and all necessary action to so deny, anyone from leveraging beyond the accords that we make to our imperfection.

If that can't be a shared principle of the thing that denotes personhood, then I will treat such people as can't share it as one would treat a cat who cannot be trusted not to scratch and bite when offered food from the hand: with gloves, and all necessary training, and as mere selfish animal.

First, we are equals. Second, we will leave each other alone except in the ways we consent. These are the very basic rules of ethics. I reject the solipsist, the selfish at the expense of others against their consent.

The one thing that is beneath me is the person who believe themselves above.

On this, I can demand symmetry. I have tried all my life to see any thing that does not come back around to this in any morality or ethics that does not itself come around to the solipsistic paradigm.

Maybe your solipsism revolves around your DNA. Congrats, that's racism, genetic solipsism. Wide as a skin tone or narrow as a family...

Maybe your solipsism revolves around your individual self, that's just pure solipsism.

There can even be cultural solipsism, which is really weird and gets into conversations that the closest words ever used for such things are "god" of the lower case g. We use different words for the concept such as Jingoism and Nationalism and Religiousity

I try not to be solipsistic: I want to pursue my actualization of self to the best of my abilities, and I recognize that to do that, I must keep this as compatible as possible with the goals of others.

What I do know is that I will not let another have power over me and that means not taking power over others, and not letting others take "power over".

Symmetry, or mutually assured destruction!

Simple ethical bedrocks, and not "relative" but based on the very concept of where we derive rights from.

And pertinent to the discussion,
Sports are what happens when two parties CONSENT to pretend they are unequal, and play fight within a bounded set of rules, for the sake of their own enjoyment of the activity, for the sake of each other.

If you violate this, that is UNSPORTSPERSONLY BEHAVIOR! Because you are not being "a person behaving as playing at sport"

The coach got gigged for being UNSPORTSPERSONLY. They used the leverage they had (assumed authority over team play direction), and applied that so as to get what he wanted at the expense of the minimal demands of the activity as for the other team.

I can see how all this can be really hard to swallow were one to wish to continue being able to justify or defend some form of bullying after some solipsistic end.

 

[Metaphor]

You look like you want a simple rule of thumb, but there is none.

It is more fundamental than that. I don't understand how this moral rule has arisen in the first place, and why it appears to me to be inconsistent with other aspects of schooling and other aspects of sport.

There are countless variables to consider and even if I had the time to explain all the rules of morality to you it wouldn't have done you any good because I would only have explained MY morality. That's because there is no such thing as an absolute morality. My simplified rule of thumb is "don't be an asshole," but that depends on a person's definition of "asshole." (Which just reaffirms the lack of absolute morality.)

I find that conservatives disagree more widely with liberals on the definition of "asshole" than each group disagrees internally. I think that's because conservatives have a stunted sense of empathy compared to liberals. We honestly will likely never agree on the morality of the school in the OP because it is unlikely you will ever recognize the value of some of the objectives the school is trying to achieve.

It isn't a question of failing to recognise the value of stated objectives (though I will note that the school has not stated them the way it is implied they have in this thread). I could understand the school trying to achieve values I don't agree with. It is the lack of coherence that needs explaining to me, and how some values have apparently been chosen over others, even where in other cases the other values are chosen.

 

[Metaphor]

You sound surprised. Have you considered that when high schools sponsor athletic activities that they might be doing so to achieve more than one objective?

I am more than surprised. If somebody had told me this story casually, I would have reckoned they were pulling my leg, or had been taken in by fake news. It is certainly the case that I cannot make sense of the commentary around it:

“Sacred Heart Academy Administration and Athletics are deeply remorseful for the manner through with the outcome of the game was achieved," she added.

What was unethical about the manner in which it was achieved? Did Sacred Heart not play by the rules?

“Sacred Heart pressed for most of the first half then called it off and went into a tight man-to-man defense trying to get steals,” Lipka said.
“They fast-breaked the entire game right to the end. They never went into a zone and continued to push the ball up the court and shoot threes whenever they could,” he continued. “They showed no mercy throughout.”

I freely confess I have no idea what is being described here. Is this bad sportsmanship? Why? If it were done at a college level, would the same behaviour have become sportsmanlike? Why?

What could have turned the coach's behaviour from unsportsmanlike to ethical? Is there evidence the coach mistreated his players? Do individual athletes have the ethical duty to withhold from their best performance to make the competition losers feel better about themselves? Why or why not?

It IS poor sportsmanship to give an opponent such a drubbing in any sport I've ever watched. Normally, in basketball, if a team finds itself far outscoring their opponents, they pull their starters and substitute their 2nd string to give them some practice and if that's not enough to even up the match, they put in their 3rd string or bench warmers or the coach institutes rules about how many passes you must make before taking a shot or where you can shoot from, etc. This normally happens in high school if there's a 20 point gap in points or more. If it gets smaller, then the more skilled team will start subbing back in their best players. Every team wants to win. Only assholes want to rub their opponents' noses in it.

Speaking of when my kids played sports in youth or highschool leagues or even college: What I absolutely cared the most about was that the coaches were good people: that they cared about fair play and sportsmanship and treating everyone well. Skills and good conditioning, fitness, etc. were next. Wins are great but not humiliating your opponent.

So, is it unfair for long distance runners to perform at their utmost, if they are leaving their opponents in the dust?

 

[Metaphor]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

It’s not unusual for one student to regularly blow the curve for any class. The instructor has some choices, though. They can set an absolute grading scale, so if the entire class scores 100, they all get A’s, etc. in more subjective classes, they can grade very gifted students with greater rigor than the rest of the class. I’ve seen that done. I’ve also seen instructors add bonus questions that anyone may attempt but which are intended to give the very gifted student a challenge. And I’ve seen instructors give certain students a different test altogether. A good instructor does not share that they do this with the class and may or may not choose to do so with the especially gifted : Lawrence, I’m only awarding you a B+ on this essay because it is not up to the standard I know you are capable of achieving. Please put greater thought into how you support your major and minor themes…

And so on. I’ve seen that done.

Some of what you have described is deeply problematic (grading a student based not on the objective quality of their work but based on the teacher's perception of lack of effort).

The teacher sharing the scaled and unscaled scores (not identifiable by student, obviously) with the class was actually relevant to the unit we were studying at the time (statistics).

 

[Metaphor]

I remember I was in grade school and my older sister was in high school. The high school football team won every game and never had a point scored against them, winning the state title. Makes me wonder if such a thing was talked about back then.

But did the team score 40+ points against their opponents every game? I have known some undefeated teams before and everyone else really wants to beat them. You can learn a lot by playing against someone more skilled and/or more talented than you are. But then there are the assholes who really really run up scores and act like thugs. No one wants to play against them. They risk injury to feed other people's egos and nothing at all is learned.

This language is very curious to me. There is no accusation that the Sacred Heart girls 'risked injury' or 'acted like thugs'. What would that even mean? Certainly if they had a consistently high number of fouls called against them I could see it, but many people here appear to be begging the question.

 

[Toni]

In the Sacred Hill situation, the team did not ease up at all. The coach is a first class asshole and is lucky he was not suspended for more games.

There was a student in my high school who was mathematically gifted. I remember one particular test where he wrecked the curve for the entire rest of the class. Should he have been told to ease up, lest his mathematical gifts humiliate the other students? Should a long distance runner hold back from achieving a personal best if she is too far ahead of the competition? If not, why not?

It’s not unusual for one student to regularly blow the curve for any class. The instructor has some choices, though. They can set an absolute grading scale, so if the entire class scores 100, they all get A’s, etc. in more subjective classes, they can grade very gifted students with greater rigor than the rest of the class. I’ve seen that done. I’ve also seen instructors add bonus questions that anyone may attempt but which are intended to give the very gifted student a challenge. And I’ve seen instructors give certain students a different test altogether. A good instructor does not share that they do this with the class and may or may not choose to do so with the especially gifted : Lawrence, I’m only awarding you a B+ on this essay because it is not up to the standard I know you are capable of achieving. Please put greater thought into how you support your major and minor themes…

And so on. I’ve seen that done.

Some of what you have described is deeply problematic (grading a student based not on the objective quality of their work but based on the teacher's perception of lack of effort).

The teacher sharing the scaled and unscaled scores (not identifiable by student, obviously) with the class was actually relevant to the unit we were studying at the time (statistics).

Sure. I can see why an instructor might use grades to illustrate how an outlier can skew a distribution curve. Funny how they don’t do it with the lowest score.

It’s still a choice that instructors make: a curve based on aggregate test scores, an objective grading scale or even a combo: generally an objective scale but if a lot of people bomb a test, grading on a curve. And…not including outliers, whether they are high or low in setting the curve.

I don’t teach but I’ve taken a lot of classes. My observation is that students value fairness and transparency.

 

[Metaphor]

Causing discomfort to others can be placed on a moral scale. It can be a moral thing or an immoral thing depending on the circumstances. Here's an exercise in morality for Metaphor. Imagine a situation in which causing others discomfort feels like a moral thing and then imagine a situation in which causing others discomfort is an immoral thing. What did you come up with?

This does not help to answer my questions.

Evidently, some people agree that some threshold was crossed by the coach when his team beat another team by a large number of points. This seems to be predicated on the idea that some unnecessary 'discomfort' at the magnitude of the loss was caused, though nobody appears to think it was somehow unethical to win the game, but merely to win by too much.

Does this apply only to high school teams and not collegiate sports? Why or why not?

Did the girls have a moral obligation to play more poorly as well as the coach instructing them to do so? Why or why not?

Does a high school long distance runner have an obligation to do less than her best if she is winning by a large margin? Why or why not?

Is asking a team to perform at less than their best effort a more ethical choice than winning by a large margin? Why? What about an individual?

EDITED: And why is the default assumption that the girls did this primarily to cause discomfort, instead of (as I would expect a sports team to do), playing to the utmost of their ability?

The default assumption is that the coach is an asshole who is much more interested in running up a score than in fair competition.

Why?

In a sport such as basketball, there are 5 starting players who are the best and then the second string for substitutions, and a third string, etc. who usually don’t get much play time.

A coach who is interested in fair play abs developing his team abs the skills of all his players would pull his starting players once it became apparent that they were badly outmatching their opponents. Second string goes in. Again, if they are still badly out performing the opponents, either the bench warmers go in OR the coach instructs them to only take shots after X number of passes or only from a certain distance or only the kid who rarely gets a shot: they get all the shots. You do your best to make it a fair match—and to give players who aren’t on the court much more time and the chance to improve. Otherwise, you unnecessarily demoralize your opponents, don’t give your less good players a chance to play and significantly risk injuries to both teams. Demoralized teams sometimes begin to throw a lot of elbows, etc. Players on teams that deliberately run up scores are not improving their skills and are merely learning to be bullies.

Who says the coach didn't bring in any new players?

In individual races, where the winner is an individual, then yes, your runner gets to go for their best time in every race. Points are awarded to teams based on the number of runners placing high. And if you have an entire team that is much faster than the competition, do be it but you should be looking for more competitive opportunities. And good runners teach other runners, even if they are beating them.

So, runners are allowed to be 'assholes', because the rules are different for that sport? That's what you appear to be saying to me.

 

[Toni]

I remember I was in grade school and my older sister was in high school. The high school football team won every game and never had a point scored against them, winning the state title. Makes me wonder if such a thing was talked about back then.

But did the team score 40+ points against their opponents every game? I have known some undefeated teams before and everyone else really wants to beat them. You can learn a lot by playing against someone more skilled and/or more talented than you are. But then there are the assholes who really really run up scores and act like thugs. No one wants to play against them. They risk injury to feed other people's egos and nothing at all is learned.

This language is very curious to me. There is no accusation that the Sacred Heart girls 'risked injury' or 'acted like thugs'. What would that even mean? Certainly if they had a consistently high number of fouls called against them I could see it, but many people here appear to be begging the question.

I’m sure the newspapers never delved into anything beyond Cauchy being suspended. Generally, it is true that girls are less likely to be thugs s d to deliberately try to hurt their opponents but I’ve seen it happen in boys’ teams. And girls can get pretty physical, too. It’s not as common.

 

[Metaphor]

Not necessarily on both counts. In the cases above, 94-4 indicates better achievement if one only is interested in a score. A blow out is a blow out - after some point the score differential doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter for the binary choice of who won the match. It matters for everything else, including point spreads in gambling and as a measure of the relative performance of each team.

My eyes and ears - I saw what their faces and reactions and I heard what they were saying.

Sorry, I was unclear. What evidence do you have that the Sacred Heart team intended to embarrass the other team?

Running as fast as one can in an individual sport is an expression of one's individual talent. In addition, improving one's time is a way to gauge one's progress.

Winning 94 to 4 as opposed to 54 to 10 does neither of the above.

Of course it does. A team that scores higher points is a more skilled team than one who scores lower points.

A blow out is a blow out - it is foolish to think that the score differential in a blow out can be used to rank skill levels. In competition, transitivity does not logically hold - if Team A beats team B by 90 while Team C beats team B by 44 points, it does not follow that Team A is more skilled than Team C.

Even if that were true (and I think if Team A consistently beat Team B by more points than Team C beat Team B, Team A would indeed be more likely to be more skilled than Team C), that does not make playing to your utmost undesirable.

 

[Toni]

Causing discomfort to others can be placed on a moral scale. It can be a moral thing or an immoral thing depending on the circumstances. Here's an exercise in morality for Metaphor. Imagine a situation in which causing others discomfort feels like a moral thing and then imagine a situation in which causing others discomfort is an immoral thing. What did you come up with?

This does not help to answer my questions.

Evidently, some people agree that some threshold was crossed by the coach when his team beat another team by a large number of points. This seems to be predicated on the idea that some unnecessary 'discomfort' at the magnitude of the loss was caused, though nobody appears to think it was somehow unethical to win the game, but merely to win by too much.

Does this apply only to high school teams and not collegiate sports? Why or why not?

Did the girls have a moral obligation to play more poorly as well as the coach instructing them to do so? Why or why not?

Does a high school long distance runner have an obligation to do less than her best if she is winning by a large margin? Why or why not?

Is asking a team to perform at less than their best effort a more ethical choice than winning by a large margin? Why? What about an individual?

EDITED: And why is the default assumption that the girls did this primarily to cause discomfort, instead of (as I would expect a sports team to do), playing to the utmost of their ability?

The default assumption is that the coach is an asshole who is much more interested in running up a score than in fair competition.

Why?

In a sport such as basketball, there are 5 starting players who are the best and then the second string for substitutions, and a third string, etc. who usually don’t get much play time.

A coach who is interested in fair play abs developing his team abs the skills of all his players would pull his starting players once it became apparent that they were badly outmatching their opponents. Second string goes in. Again, if they are still badly out performing the opponents, either the bench warmers go in OR the coach instructs them to only take shots after X number of passes or only from a certain distance or only the kid who rarely gets a shot: they get all the shots. You do your best to make it a fair match—and to give players who aren’t on the court much more time and the chance to improve. Otherwise, you unnecessarily demoralize your opponents, don’t give your less good players a chance to play and significantly risk injuries to both teams. Demoralized teams sometimes begin to throw a lot of elbows, etc. Players on teams that deliberately run up scores are not improving their skills and are merely learning to be bullies.

Who says the coach didn't bring in any new players?

In individual races, where the winner is an individual, then yes, your runner gets to go for their best time in every race. Points are awarded to teams based on the number of runners placing high. And if you have an entire team that is much faster than the competition, do be it but you should be looking for more competitive opportunities. And good runners teach other runners, even if they are beating them.

So, runners are allowed to be 'assholes', because the rules are different for that sport? That's what you appear to be saying to me.

No, basketball is different than track. In track, the fastest time is the fastest time. The second fastest time can bing to a different team, third place to a third team or one of the first two, etc. I don’t remember how many points one gets for the best time or for second, etc. It also depends on the toe if meet: cross country is one toe of meet. A different type of meet has different t types of competition: relays, sprints, middle and long distance, high jump, broad jump, pole vault, shot put, etc. different team members compete in different events and some will compete in multiple events. Except for relays, each competitor is scored individually.

One team can have the fastest runner in 3 states and still not win a meet or even that event if they don’t have enough excellent team members to take second, third, compete in different events, etc. performances are individual with a aggregate team score.

That’s wildly different than a basketball team where even if you have one outstanding member who takes all the shots, you still need the rest of the team to help pas the ball, guard, etc. The match is scored based on the team success compared with the other teams success. In fact, a good coach will not let a single player grandstand and take all the shots. No one learns by watching someone else hog the ball. Abs it’s not fun. And even the star dies t learn abs grow as much as they could.

As to why one would assume that a coach who lets his team run up a score ( bet ahead by an excessive number of points) is an asshole? Because they are being an asshole. It’s not teaching anyone anything at all except how to be an asshole and how to be humiliated.

A good competition is between fairly evenly matched competitors who treat one another with respect and dignity. A good competitor isn’t just skilled and disciplined. They are also generous and kind.

Even in a lot of jobs: if working in trans, often one person is exceptionally good at X part of the task. To a certain extent, there is benefit in letting them always handle X. But there’s also a point in ensuring that more than one person can do X. And frankly, if no one else gets to do X, then the best the team will ever do is as well as that one person. No one will ever have a chance to be even better at X. And how is the team helped?

Suppose there are two teams in your company. Sure some friendly competition can be good. But if the losing team is demoralized, the whole company suffers.

 

[Metaphor]

As to why one would assume that a coach who lets his team run up a score ( bet ahead by an excessive number of points) is an asshole? Because they are being an asshole. It’s not teaching anyone anything at all except how to be an asshole and how to be humiliated.

Answering my question by stating your premises isn't answering my question.

A good competition is between fairly evenly matched competitors who treat one another with respect and dignity. A good competitor isn’t just skilled and disciplined. They are also generous and kind.

Even in a lot of jobs: if working in trans, often one person is exceptionally good at X part of the task. To a certain extent, there is benefit in letting them always handle X. But there’s also a point in ensuring that more than one person can do X. And frankly, if no one else gets to do X, then the best the team will ever do is as well as that one person. No one will ever have a chance to be even better at X. And how is the team helped?

Suppose there are two teams in your company. Sure some friendly competition can be good. But if the losing team is demoralized, the whole company suffers.

My workplace doesn't have competing teams in that fashion, but if a workplace did, surely whatever they are competing about would be related to company profit - and no boss is going to say 'don't sell as many products this week, the other team is getting humiliated'.

 

[laughing dog]

Not necessarily on both counts. In the cases above, 94-4 indicates better achievement if one only is interested in a score. A blow out is a blow out - after some point the score differential doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter for the binary choice of who won the match. It matters for everything else, including point spreads in gambling and as a measure of the relative performance of each team.

We are talking about a high school game. No team is required to make point spreads. So your gambling rationale is inapt.

And, 94-4 adds no more information about the relative performance than 70 to 20 or even 60 to 40.

My eyes and ears - I saw what their faces and reactions and I heard what they were saying.

Sorry, I was unclear. What evidence do you have that the Sacred Heart team intended to embarrass the other team?

The 90 point spread. It is really that simple - no team needs to win by 90 points in a basketball game.

Running as fast as one can in an individual sport is an expression of one's individual talent. In addition, improving one's time is a way to gauge one's progress.

Winning 94 to 4 as opposed to 54 to 10 does neither of the above.

Of course it does. A team that scores higher points is a more skilled team than one who scores lower points.

A blow out is a blow out - it is foolish to think that the score differential in a blow out can be used to rank skill levels. In competition, transitivity does not logically hold - if Team A beats team B by 90 while Team C beats team B by 44 points, it does not follow that Team A is more skilled than Team C.

Even if that were true (and I think if Team A consistently beat Team B by more points than Team C beat Team B, Team A would indeed be more likely to be more skilled than Team C), that does not make playing to your utmost undesirable.

Playing to one's utmost does not require a 90 point differential, especially at level of high school or lower (which is what we are talking about). Even in basketball, players can work on skills that do not lead to scoring more points.

Whether you get it or not, this particular high school coach acted like an asshole in allowing his team to drub an opponent by 90 points.

 

[Metaphor]

The 90 point spread. It is really that simple - no team needs to win by 90 points in a basketball game.

No team needs to win any game, or play basketball at all. I don't understand your point.

Playing to one's utmost does not require a 90 point differential, especially at level of high school or lower (which is what we are talking about). Even in basketball, players can work on skills that do not lead to scoring more points.

Whether you get it or not, this particular high school coach acted like an asshole in allowing his team to drub an opponent by 90 points.

I can say for sure that I do not share the same prejudiced thoughts that some posters on this board have.

 

[laughing dog]

So, runners are allowed to be 'assholes', because the rules are different for that sport? That's what you appear to be saying to me.

Your conclusion reflects more about you than it does about the topic of discussion.

Running is an individual sport. The goal of a runner is to run the fastest race possible. So, running as fast as possible is not being an asshole.

The goal of a team sport is to win the match. Winning by one point is the same as winning by 10 points or 40 points or 90 points. After some point in a game, adding to the score differential does not improve the chances of winning. However, it does improve the chances of the opposition trying to hurt the winning team. And, it does make the team that is running up the score look like a bunch of asshole.

 

[laughing dog]

The 90 point spread. It is really that simple - no team needs to win by 90 points in a basketball game.

No team needs to win any game, or play basketball at all. I don't understand your point.

And yet, you continue to participate in a discussion in which you don't understand its point.

Playing to one's utmost does not require a 90 point differential, especially at level of high school or lower (which is what we are talking about). Even in basketball, players can work on skills that do not lead to scoring more points.

Whether you get it or not, this particular high school coach acted like an asshole in allowing his team to drub an opponent by 90 points.

I can say for sure that I do not share the same prejudiced thoughts that some posters on this board have.

No, you have your own prejudiced feelings.

 

[Metaphor]

The goal of a team sport is to win the match. Winning by one point is the same as winning by 10 points or 40 points or 90 points.

Except it isn't "the same". If it were "the same", then there'd be no reason to be more embarrassed by a 90 point loss than a 1 point loss.

However, it does improve the chances of the opposition trying to hurt the winning team. And, it does make the team that is running up the score look like a bunch of asshole.

That the opposition would become bad losers and try to assault (?) the winning team is not a good moral reason to not perform at your utmost.

 

[Metaphor]

And yet, you continue to participate in a discussion in which you don't understand its point.

I don't understand the alleged moral principles and framework people have used to confidently call this coach an asshole. When I see spectacular performance my mind does not go to 'the winning team are assholes' but instead 'the winning team won spectacularly'.

 

[Toni]

As to why one would assume that a coach who lets his team run up a score ( bet ahead by an excessive number of points) is an asshole? Because they are being an asshole. It’s not teaching anyone anything at all except how to be an asshole and how to be humiliated.

Answering my question by stating your premises isn't answering my question.

A good competition is between fairly evenly matched competitors who treat one another with respect and dignity. A good competitor isn’t just skilled and disciplined. They are also generous and kind.

Even in a lot of jobs: if working in trans, often one person is exceptionally good at X part of the task. To a certain extent, there is benefit in letting them always handle X. But there’s also a point in ensuring that more than one person can do X. And frankly, if no one else gets to do X, then the best the team will ever do is as well as that one person. No one will ever have a chance to be even better at X. And how is the team helped?

Suppose there are two teams in your company. Sure some friendly competition can be good. But if the losing team is demoralized, the whole company suffers.

My workplace doesn't have competing teams in that fashion, but if a workplace did, surely whatever they are competing about would be related to company profit - and no boss is going to say 'don't sell as many products this week, the other team is getting humiliated'.

Ok so you are deliberately being obtuse.

No need to bother with this any more.