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

[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'.

Ok so you are deliberately being obtuse.

No need to bother with this any more.

No.

As ever, you label my not sharing your implicit premises as deliberate obtuseness. You are right that you shouldn't bother if the only thing you can do is repeat your prejudiced assumptions and somehow hope you'll persuade me.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Winning is winning. Losing by one point means the team was close, losing by 90 means it was a rout. Really, this is not rocket science.

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.

It is a practical reason. Of course, no one, least of all you, has established that winning by 90 points in high school instead of 40 is performing at one's utmost.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Sure Jan.

When I see spectacular performance my mind does not go to 'the winning team are assholes' but instead 'the winning team won spectacularly'.

My guess is you have no clue about high school team sports in the USA.

 

[ZiprHead]

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'.

I have come to the conclusion that you seem to simply lack empathy and that's why you have difficulty understanding issues such as this. Don't worry too much about it though. It seems to be a trait carried amongst a great many conservatives.

If you have another expanation for your lack of understanding, I'm open to seeing it.

 

[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.

No.

As ever, you label my not sharing your implicit premises as deliberate obtuseness. You are right that you shouldn't bother if the only thing you can do is repeat your prejudiced assumptions and somehow hope you'll persuade me.

I honestly do not mean this as snark but no matter how hard I try to explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you.

I don't know if it's because you haven't played a lot of competitive sports (and I don't know if you have or have not) or if you simply have difficulty with empathy or imagining how other people feel in certain situations unless those situations are familiar to you. Again, I don't mean this as snark or criticism. It's an observation, and it might be more reflective of my inability to explain something to you rather than your inability to understand or your determination to cling to your position without actually considering the validity of someone else's points. I honestly don't know. But I'm giving up.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Actually, it is exactly a reason not to perform at your utmost, but more, there is a more primary reason why you don't: because the other team didn't consent to that manner of your performance when they agreed to the game.

There are a lot of situations where people leverage more than was consented to, and nowhere do we accept this.

It's not justifiable, but it really makes me wonder why metaphor wants to justify it so badly...

 

[JohnG]

Organized hockey in Canada is the same. You don't run up the score in a game that's out of reach for your opponent. In the sports world, it's seen as classless and petty.

 

[Toni]

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.

Playing to one’s utmost requires that you are playing against competition that is near your level. Too far above and you cannot effectively compete , which is disheartening. Too far below and it isn’t actually a competition. It’s just you running roughshod over the competition. You’re not doing your best. You’re just playing alone with other people as props.

 

[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.

Winning is winning. Losing by one point means the team was close, losing by 90 means it was a rout. Really, this is not rocket science.

Yes, and winning by 0.1 seconds and winning by 10 minutes is still winning. Yet you don't expect marathon runners to hold back.

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.

It is a practical reason. Of course, no one, least of all you, has established that winning by 90 points in high school instead of 40 is performing at one's utmost.

It's a practical reason, but a team that would 'hurt' the team that is 'drubbing' them is significantly less sportsmanlike than the team doing the drubbing.

 

[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.

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.

Playing to one’s utmost requires that you are playing against competition that is near your level.

No, it doesn't.

Too far above and you cannot effectively compete , which is disheartening. Too far below and it isn’t actually a competition. It’s just you running roughshod over the competition. You’re not doing your best. You’re just playing alone with other people as props.

Yes. Using women as props didn't bother Lia Thomas when he swam against them, did it?

Incredibly, you are now defining Sacred Heart as 'doing their best' by 'holding back from doing their best'.

 

[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.

Actually, it is exactly a reason not to perform at your utmost, but more, there is a more primary reason why you don't: because the other team didn't consent to that manner of your performance when they agreed to the game.

Ludicrous. The other team consented to play against you, using the rules of the game.

That you think there is an implied duty by the competitors to make it 'fun' for one another is your own unproved assumption.

There are a lot of situations where people leverage more than was consented to, and nowhere do we accept this.

It's not justifiable, but it really makes me wonder why metaphor wants to justify it so badly...

The people playing a game where a score is kept are consenting to the possibility that they will lose, and possibly lose badly.

That you think consent has been 'violated' by somebody playing at their utmost is a sign that you have a problem with the ordinary meaning of language and the concept of consent, not that anybody's consent has been violated.

 

[Metaphor]

I honestly do not mean this as snark but no matter how hard I try to explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you.

You are correct that you cannot make me share your implicit assumptions by merely repeating your conclusions at me.

I don't know if it's because you haven't played a lot of competitive sports (and I don't know if you have or have not) or if you simply have difficulty with empathy or imagining how other people feel in certain situations unless those situations are familiar to you. Again, I don't mean this as snark or criticism. It's an observation, and it might be more reflective of my inability to explain something to you rather than your inability to understand or your determination to cling to your position without actually considering the validity of someone else's points. I honestly don't know. But I'm giving up.

It beggars belief that you would speak to me of empathy and considering another viewpoint. You assumed the coach was an 'asshole' without entertaining any other possibility.

I played board games with my nieces and nephews over Christmas. I sometimes played not as strategically as I could have, because I have decades on them and it isn't fun to lose all the time, especially when you are in primary school. I am an adult and they are children. But if they were playing against peers, why on earth should they each not play to their utmost? That's what I thought children were taught about sports: it doesn't matter much whether you win or lose, as long as you try your hardest.

 

[Rhea]

I googled "high school basketball program goals" and came up with many examples. The first one was this:

Program Philosophy​

The Vernon Hills basketball program philosophy begins with the understanding that coaching is more important than winning. The players that we see in the gym are also students, family members, and friends to many. The coaching staff must encourage and foster the desire to learn not only the game of basketball, but also assist players as they learn to navigate through life.

Program Goals​

1. Improve the basketball skills of the players in the program
2. Improve as a team as the season progresses
3. Expose players to life lessons via basketball
4. Make sure the players have an enjoyable experience
5. Win

Team Goals​

1. Compete to win in practice everyday
2. Play with passion on the defensive end. Excitement is contagious!
3. Survive and Advance in the state tournament
4. Have no excuses. We have what it takes to win
5. No code violations. No detentions. Have great character on and off the court

It takes a TEAM to win a game​

1. Teams that play hard will defend, run the floor, and rebound
2. Teams that play smart take high percentage shots, understand time and score, are organized, and have players that understand their roles
3. Teams that play together communicate with each other, know the offensive and defensive systems, and insist on a great team effort at all times

By incorporating this philosophy, a Vernon Hills basketball player should be prepared and ready to execute the skills necessary to excel on and off the court

Most all of them were similar.

I don't see any of them advocating humiliating your opponents

The responses ~against~ this one-game suspension seem to indicate that they either did not read this post, or do not understand it. The responses ~supporting~ the one-game suspension have been trying to explain the concept that winning by the most points is not the number one goal of high school sports programs.

Something is preventing one poster from acknowledging that winning is not supposed to be everything in high school sports, especially if it comes at the cost of publicly humiliating an opponent who is not capable of competing at the same level.

Some people just do not understand the point of empathy and good sportsmanship. They just don’t get it. Like this coach.

 

[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'.

I have come to the conclusion that you seem to simply lack empathy and that's why you have difficulty understanding issues such as this. Don't worry too much about it though. It seems to be a trait carried amongst a great many conservatives.

If you have another expanation for your lack of understanding, I'm open to seeing it.

I am not a conservative nor do I lack empathy. Indeed, it appears astonishing to me that you would speak of 'empathy' - an ability to understand and share the feelings of others - when you absolutely have not shown you understand (or care to understand) my position at all.

I have pointed out inconsistencies in people's moral intuitions on this subject and asked them to account for those inconsistencies. Instead, I get people saying I just don't understand what it's like. You think this explains away my objections. It does not.

 

[Metaphor]

The responses ~against~ this one-game suspension seem to indicate that they either did not read this post, or do not understand it. The responses ~supporting~ the one-game suspension have been trying to explain the concept that winning by the most points is not the number one goal of high school sports programs.

It appears you didn't read the post. I did not claim winning by the most points is the number one goal of high school sports programs.

Something is preventing one poster from acknowledging that winning is not supposed to be everything in high school sports, especially if it comes at the cost of publicly humiliating an opponent who is not capable of competing at the same level.

What is this coy reference to 'one poster'? Do you think that when you make false accusations against me, I will somehow not be aware of it because you did not name me?

 

[Toni]

I honestly do not mean this as snark but no matter how hard I try to explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you.

You are correct that you cannot make me share your implicit assumptions by merely repeating your conclusions at me.

I don't know if it's because you haven't played a lot of competitive sports (and I don't know if you have or have not) or if you simply have difficulty with empathy or imagining how other people feel in certain situations unless those situations are familiar to you. Again, I don't mean this as snark or criticism. It's an observation, and it might be more reflective of my inability to explain something to you rather than your inability to understand or your determination to cling to your position without actually considering the validity of someone else's points. I honestly don't know. But I'm giving up.

It beggars belief that you would speak to me of empathy and considering another viewpoint. You assumed the coach was an 'asshole' without entertaining any other possibility.

I played board games with my nieces and nephews over Christmas. I sometimes played not as strategically as I could have, because I have decades on them and it isn't fun to lose all the time, especially when you are in primary school. I am an adult and they are children. But if they were playing against peers, why on earth should they each not play to their utmost? That's what I thought children were taught about sports: it doesn't matter much whether you win or lose, as long as you try your hardest.

I made no assumptions about the coach. Allowing your team to run up a score against a dramatically lower skilled team by such a wide margin is simply an asshole thing to do. It is. This is widely accepted among decent people in the US. It's poor sportsmanship.

You understand this on one level: You play at a lower level when you play board games against your nieces and nephews. You have empathy with them: you know it feels lousy to lose all the time. That's part of the issue.

The other part is: what do you teach your nieces and nephews if you play at your highest level and consistently beat them--badly? You teach them that they are no good at whatever game it is that you're playing --and more importantly, perhaps no good at anything (kids over generalize especially when they feel criticized by someone they admire and respect, like an uncle) and that you're not very nice.

My husband's grandfather was a pretty good chess player. When my husband was a child, his grandfather taught him to be a pretty decent chess player---by playing with fewer pieces until his grandson could hold his own, at least a bit, gradually increasing his own level of playing as his grandson could withstand a bit--and taught him not only how to play chess well, but sportsmanship and compassion and encouraged him enough not to give up but to keep trying, that he could learn to do better.

It's not different in competitive sports. If coaches taught skills by punishingly beating their students by outplaying them at (insert whatever sport you like), the kids would likely give up before they actually learned. Instead, adults--parents, coaches, teachers, uncles, etc. teach children (or lesser skilled adults who may be their peers in other respects or even superior in some skills) teach a little at a time, meeting the student at the student's skill level and then helping them gain more skills.

Competing against other teams is an extension of these lessons--it's applying these lessons. Among those lessons should always be, at the very core, sportsmanship: not drumming your opponent because you can. The very good players learn nothing good by running up scores. They do not improve their own skills. They do not improve the skills of their opponents.

A good coach will substitute in less skilled players who normally don't get much play time, both to give them a chance to improve their skills and also to be more fair to the opposing team. There are other strategies that I've mentioned in other posts that good coaches will do: insist on a certain number of passes before a shot, insist that shots only be taken from such and such a position on the court and so on.

Look at it another way: Suppose I wanted to play in a tennis match and suppose I knew how (I don't) and was reasonably good for my age. Suppose I entered the court and found I was facing Serena Williams. There is no way that I would not be seriously drummed even if she played with only her off hand and blindfolded. Unless she adjusted her play to give me a chance to get some kind of volley going and actually learn something I didn't already know: Serena Williams plays much better tennis than I ever could, even if I had started playing when I was 4 years old. I might learn some skills and Serena Williams would not look like a grandstanding egomaniac taking advantage of a very amateur player.

It's honestly the same thing as you toning down your play to give your nieces and nephews a chance to win. Only more so. You are doing it not to discourage your nieces and nephews and so they can have fun. A good coach will do so for the same reasons and also to give his own usually benched players a chance to play and the other team a chance to play against players more evenly matched--which will build their skills, too. If you are badly outclassed, you don't improve your game. Usually, players give up and sometimes lose their tempers. Because it doesn't seem fair. Kids of all ages, and adults as well, respond much better if they think things are as fair as possible.

Nobody is suggesting that a team should throw a game to make the other team feel better. I think everybody understands that players want to win their matches.

 

[Metaphor]

I made no assumptions about the coach. Allowing your team to run up a score against a dramatically lower skilled team by such a wide margin is simply an asshole thing to do. It is. This is widely accepted among decent people in the US. It's poor sportsmanship.

How have you recognised decent people? Let me guess: it's the people who have the same opinions as you. What a nice coincidence for you.

The other part is: what do you teach your nieces and nephews if you play at your highest level and consistently beat them--badly? You teach them that they are no good at whatever game it is that you're playing --and more importantly, perhaps no good at anything (kids over generalize especially when they feel criticized by someone they admire and respect, like an uncle) and that you're not very nice.

Losing at a game is not criticism. But you are also being inconsistent here. The other team (not Sacred Heart) have lost all five games they've played this season. Does a moral obligation to collude with other teams and 'let' the team win once in a while arise? Why or why not?

A good coach will substitute in less skilled players who normally don't get much play time, both to give them a chance to improve their skills and also to be more fair to the opposing team.

The coach already did that.

Look at it another way: Suppose I wanted to play in a tennis match and suppose I knew how (I don't) and was reasonably good for my age. Suppose I entered the court and found I was facing Serena Williams. There is no way that I would not be seriously drummed even if she played with only her off hand and blindfolded. Unless she adjusted her play to give me a chance to get some kind of volley going and actually learn something I didn't already know: Serena Williams plays much better tennis than I ever could, even if I had started playing when I was 4 years old. I might learn some skills and Serena Williams would not look like a grandstanding egomaniac taking advantage of a very amateur player.

Yes, if Serena Williams played a social game against you, I expect she would take it easy on you, but that doesn't mean she's an asshole if she doesn't. And, more to the point, if she were playing a peer - you know, a professional tennis player - I would not expect her to 'lighten up' at any point, and I would think it would be unsportsmanlike for her to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Winning is winning. Losing by one point means the team was close, losing by 90 means it was a rout. Really, this is not rocket science.

Yes, and winning by 0.1 seconds and winning by 10 minutes is still winning. Yet you don't expect marathon runners to hold back.

You keep bringing up racing examples. The point of racing is to run as fast as you can. The point of a team sport is to win the match, not have the largest possible score differential.

It is as if you have no clue what high school sports are about. Sportsmanship is not just about doing your best but how you do it as well.

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.

It is a practical reason. Of course, no one, least of all you, has established that winning by 90 points in high school instead of 40 is performing at one's utmost.

It's a practical reason, but a team that would 'hurt' the team that is 'drubbing' them is significantly less sportsmanlike than the team doing the drubbing.

So?

 

[laughing dog]

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'.

I have come to the conclusion that you seem to simply lack empathy and that's why you have difficulty understanding issues such as this. Don't worry too much about it though. It seems to be a trait carried amongst a great many conservatives.

If you have another expanation for your lack of understanding, I'm open to seeing it.

I am not a conservative nor do I lack empathy.

Unfortunately, your posts do not support your claim.

Indeed, it appears astonishing to me that you would speak of 'empathy' - an ability to understand and share the feelings of others - when you absolutely have not shown you understand (or care to understand) my position at all.

I have pointed out inconsistencies in people's moral intuitions on this subject and asked them to account for those inconsistencies. Instead, I get people saying I just don't understand what it's like. You think this explains away my objections. It does not.

You are mistaken. Your failure to understand leads you to falsely conclude you have pointed out inconsistencies in their moral intuition. All you have successfully done is drawn attention to your faulty moral intuition.

 

[Toni]

I made no assumptions about the coach. Allowing your team to run up a score against a dramatically lower skilled team by such a wide margin is simply an asshole thing to do. It is. This is widely accepted among decent people in the US. It's poor sportsmanship.

How have you recognised? It's the people who have the same opinions as you. What a nice coincidence for you.

The other part is: what do you teach your nieces and nephews if you play at your highest level and consistently beat them--badly? You teach them that they are no good at whatever game it is that you're playing --and more importantly, perhaps no good at anything (kids over generalize especially when they feel criticized by someone they admire and respect, like an uncle) and that you're not very nice.

Losing at a game is not criticism. But you are also being inconsistent here. The other team (not Sacred Heart) have lost all five games they've played this season. Does a moral obligation to collude with other teams and 'let' the team win once in a while arise? Why or why not?

A good coach will substitute in less skilled players who normally don't get much play time, both to give them a chance to improve their skills and also to be more fair to the opposing team.

The coach already did that.

Look at it another way: Suppose I wanted to play in a tennis match and suppose I knew how (I don't) and was reasonably good for my age. Suppose I entered the court and found I was facing Serena Williams. There is no way that I would not be seriously drummed even if she played with only her off hand and blindfolded. Unless she adjusted her play to give me a chance to get some kind of volley going and actually learn something I didn't already know: Serena Williams plays much better tennis than I ever could, even if I had started playing when I was 4 years old. I might learn some skills and Serena Williams would not look like a grandstanding egomaniac taking advantage of a very amateur player.

Yes, if Serena Williams played a social game against you, I expect she would take it easy on you, but that doesn't mean she's an asshole if she doesn't. And, more to the point, if she were playing a peer - you know, a professional tennis player - I would not expect her to 'lighten up' at any point, and I would think it would be unsportsmanlike for her to do so.

If Scared Heart's opponent had lost the previous 5 matches, then so much more important not to deliberately run up a score against them.

If Serena Williams played her best against me, then she'd be an asshole to do that. No one is obligated to not be an asshole (except coaches who are setting an example for their team). But Williams would look awful to most people for trouncing me more than necessary. I mean, if I were being a jerk about it, then she'd have a right to play harder against me. but honestly, trouncing me would not make her look good. It would make her look bad. Most people would see that.