• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem

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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

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.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem

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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,489
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
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.
 
Last edited:

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

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

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,865
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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...
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,225
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
Of course I am bringing it up. Running as fast as you can may cause the same distress to the slow runners as winning by a large margin. Yet you claim there is a moral difference that obligates the team sport players but not the runners.
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.
I have asked people to justify their conclusions without simply stating their conclusions.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
Why is there that moral obligation, but not the moral obligation to throw the game? Wouldn't the other team feel even better if they won the game, rather than lost by some margin that is unacceptable to you?
If Serena Williams played her best against me, then she'd be an asshole to do that.
Um, no. I doubt she would in a social game, but if you wanted to play against Serena Williams, I can see no possible moral obligation for her to 'go easy' unless you explicitly asked her to.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I have asked people to justify their conclusions without simply stating their conclusions.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.
Of course I am bringing it up. Running as fast as you can may cause the same distress to the slow runners as winning by a large margin. Yet you claim there is a moral difference that obligates the team sport players but not the runners.
First, it is silly to think that someone running as fast as they can would bring the same distress to slower runners as running up the score since the point of racing is to run as fast as you can but running up the score is not the point of team match.

Second, I have made no claim about a moral difference. Being an asshole is not immoral. Why you keep babbling about "moral differences" is truly a mystery.

Third, I have made no claim about the obligations of team sports players. I pointed out - and many others have confirmed - that running up the score is considered an asshole thing to do because having the largest score differential is not the point of a competitive match. Nor is running up the score against a hapless opponent an example of doing one's utmost, because there is, in essence (especially in this instance) no effective opposition.


I have asked people to justify their conclusions without simply stating their conclusions.
And they have done so, and there is no evidence that you recognize that fact.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
First, it is silly to think that someone running as fast as they can would bring the same distress to slower runners as running up the score since the point of racing is to run as fast as you can but running up the score is not the point of team match.
No. You have not offered any evidence it is 'silly' to think that, nor have you offered any evidence that athletes do not, in fact, think that.

If anything, it seems to me it could be more distressing, not less. The loss by a team sports athlete can be partially externalised as the 'fault' of other members of the team, but there isn't any such externalisation that a runner could make. If somebody beats you commandingly, it's because you personally were not fast enough.
Second, I have made no claim about a moral difference. Being an asshole is not immoral. Why you keep babbling about "moral differences" is truly a mystery.
I am not babbling. You think one situation requires you to act in a certain way in order not to be an asshole, and another requires no such obligation.
Third, I have made no claim about the obligations of team sports players. I pointed out - and many others have confirmed - that running up the score is considered an asshole thing to do because having the largest score differential is not the point of a competitive match. Nor is running up the score against a hapless opponent an example of doing one's utmost, because there is, in essence (especially in this instance) no effective opposition.
Failing to play as effectively as you can out of pity for the other team is not doing your utmost at playing. It is compromising your utmost to serve another goal.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
First, it is silly to think that someone running as fast as they can would bring the same distress to slower runners as running up the score since the point of racing is to run as fast as you can but running up the score is not the point of team match.
No. You have not offered any evidence it is 'silly' to think that, nor have you offered any evidence that athletes do not, in fact, think that.
Yes, I did. Have someone read the bolded part to you and then explain it.
If anything, it seems to me it could be more distressing, not less. The loss by a team sports athlete can be partially externalised as the 'fault' of other members of the team, but there isn't any such externalisation that a runner could make. If somebody beats you commandingly, it's because you personally were not fast enough.
If someone beats you by one second, you were not fast enough. Runners get that. Apparently you don't.
Second, I have made no claim about a moral difference. Being an asshole is not immoral. Why you keep babbling about "moral differences" is truly a mystery.
I am not babbling. You think one situation requires you to act in a certain way in order not to be an asshole, and another requires no such obligation.
You are babbling about "moral differences". There is no morality involved in those decisions. One can either act to be seen as an asshole or one can act not to be seen.
Third, I have made no claim about the obligations of team sports players. I pointed out - and many others have confirmed - that running up the score is considered an asshole thing to do because having the largest score differential is not the point of a competitive match. Nor is running up the score against a hapless opponent an example of doing one's utmost, because there is, in essence (especially in this instance) no effective opposition.
Failing to play as effectively as you can out of pity for the other team is not doing your utmost at playing. It is compromising your utmost to serve another goal.
"Playing as effectively as you can" is not the same as "Scoring the most points possible", so your entire argument is based on a false conflation.

Effective playing at this level encompasses many goals, including sportmanship.

It is obvious you have no clue about sports in the US (or perhaps anywhere).
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Yes, I did. Have someone read the bolded part to you and then explain it.
I understand the bolded part. What I do not understand is how it makes a moral difference.
You are babbling about "moral differences". There is no morality involved in those decisions. One can either act to be seen as an asshole or one can act not to be seen.
laughing dog, you very freely accuse others of "babbling" when they are discussing. Since I take it being an asshole is an act one ought avoid because it hurts people's feelings to be an asshole, there is a moral dimension to it. If you think being an asshole isn't undesirable, I wonder how you could be so catastrophically inept with your understanding of language.
"Playing as effectively as you can" is not the same as "Scoring the most points possible", so your entire argument is based on a false conflation.
Playing the best you can leads to scoring points. The skill in the game is quantified by the points.

Effective playing at this level encompasses many goals, including sportmanship.

It is obvious you have no clue about sports in the US (or perhaps anywhere).
It is obvious you have no desire to understand any point of view other than your own. And I think you don't even understand that.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,426
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Understanding sportsmanship is like understanding color. You need the ability to experience it to truly appreciate it.
Many forms of blindness.

The NBA provides good examples of sportsmanship. It’s just as easy to see how much better a team is by looking at how many minutes the bench of the winning team played as it is by a high point differential. Sportsmanship is sitting your starters in the fourth quarter when the game is a blowout.
Showcasing your individual talent is fine when one is only being scored on their individual talent. LeBron James would finish his career with much higher individual statistics if he did not put the team before himself.
For children, sports should be about understanding and appreciating sportsmanship and teamwork, learning about fairness and respect for your opponent. This is why all the little six and seven year olds on both soccer teams are winners.
More of a desire to play than to win.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,099
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
First, it is silly to think that someone running as fast as they can would bring the same distress to slower runners as running up the score since the point of racing is to run as fast as you can but running up the score is not the point of team match.
No. You have not offered any evidence it is 'silly' to think that, nor have you offered any evidence that athletes do not, in fact, think that.

If anything, it seems to me it could be more distressing, not less. The loss by a team sports athlete can be partially externalised as the 'fault' of other members of the team, but there isn't any such externalisation that a runner could make. If somebody beats you commandingly, it's because you personally were not fast enough.
Second, I have made no claim about a moral difference. Being an asshole is not immoral. Why you keep babbling about "moral differences" is truly a mystery.
I am not babbling. You think one situation requires you to act in a certain way in order not to be an asshole, and another requires no such obligation.
Third, I have made no claim about the obligations of team sports players. I pointed out - and many others have confirmed - that running up the score is considered an asshole thing to do because having the largest score differential is not the point of a competitive match. Nor is running up the score against a hapless opponent an example of doing one's utmost, because there is, in essence (especially in this instance) no effective opposition.
Failing to play as effectively as you can out of pity for the other team is not doing your utmost at playing. It is compromising your utmost to serve another goal.
Pity is not the same thing as compassion or sportsmanship. If a team is running up a score against a badly outclassed opponent, they are not playing to their highest potential. They are not proving anything by scoring 40+ points more than the other team except their lack of compassion and their lack of sportsmanship. The winning team is learning nothing. The losing team is learning nothing. It's an enormous waste of time and opportunity. Every single game risks injury to any player. If one team is losing badly, they are more likely to take greater risks with their own and their opponents' safety and the risk of injury is greater.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Yes, I did. Have someone read the bolded part to you and then explain it.
I understand the bolded part. What I do not understand is how it makes a moral difference.
Your 2nd sentence rebuts your claim of understanding - the situations are different. You clearly don't understand the difference which means you didn't understand the bolded part regardles of your belief to the contrary.
You are babbling about "moral differences". There is no morality involved in those decisions. One can either act to be seen as an asshole or one can act not to be seen.
laughing dog, you very freely accuse others of "babbling" when they are discussing. Since I take it being an asshole is an act one ought avoid because it hurts people's feelings to be an asshole, there is a moral dimension to it. If you think being an asshole isn't undesirable, I wonder how you could be so catastrophically inept with your understanding of language.
Whether an outcome is desirable or undesirable does not necessarily entail a moral dimension - as anyone remotely capable of reason understands,
"Playing as effectively as you can" is not the same as "Scoring the most points possible", so your entire argument is based on a false conflation.
Playing the best you can leads to scoring points. The skill in the game is quantified by the points
Anyone who is not inept in reason understands that reasoning does not logically lead to "Playing effectively as you can" means "Scoring the most points possible".
Effective playing at this level encompasses many goals, including sportmanship.

It is obvious you have no clue about sports in the US (or perhaps anywhere).
It is obvious you have no desire to understand any point of view other than your own. And I think you don't even understand that.
LOL - your projection is truly ironic. I understand your position. It is based on a demonstrated lack of understanding of sports in the US.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your 2nd sentence rebuts your claim of understanding - the situations are different. You clearly don't understand the difference which means you didn't understand the bolded part regardles of your belief to the contrary.
The distinctions you've made is special pleading. The distress caused is the same.
Whether an outcome is desirable or undesirable does not necessarily entail a moral dimension - as anyone remotely capable of reason understands,
You no doubt want to win this semantic argument, but you are indeed claiming it is undesirable for people to behave like assholes and they ought not do it. Avoiding undesirable behaviour because of its negative effect on others is a choice with a moral dimension but if you don't want to call it that, obviously I'm not going to force you.
Anyone who is not inept in reason understands that reasoning does not logically lead to "Playing effectively as you can" means "Scoring the most points possible".
Anyone who can read can see I wrote playing the best you can entails scoring points.
LOL - your projection is truly ironic. I understand your position. It is based on a demonstrated lack of understanding of sports in the US.
Sure Jan.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,370
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
First, it is silly to think that someone running as fast as they can would bring the same distress to slower runners as running up the score since the point of racing is to run as fast as you can but running up the score is not the point of team match.
If anything, it seems to me it could be more distressing, not less. The loss by a team sports athlete can be partially externalised as the 'fault' of other members of the team, but there isn't any such externalisation that a runner could make.
Yeah, no... that isn't true. In running, there are no points for time. So you lose, you lose. Whether by 2 seconds or 2 minutes.

In order to only give up 4 points in a basketball game, you need to continue to press, unnecessarily hard. And to score 90 points, you need to keep trying to score, instead of playing possession and time. Have you never played a sport? If you play with a niece or nephew, do you kick their asses?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
First, it is silly to think that someone running as fast as they can would bring the same distress to slower runners as running up the score since the point of racing is to run as fast as you can but running up the score is not the point of team match.
If anything, it seems to me it could be more distressing, not less. The loss by a team sports athlete can be partially externalised as the 'fault' of other members of the team, but there isn't any such externalisation that a runner could make.
Yeah, no... that isn't true. In running, there are no points for time. So you lose, you lose. Whether by 2 seconds or 2 minutes.
Time is directly relevant. Records are based solely on time, not on who won or lost.

In order to only give up 4 points in a basketball game, you need to continue to press, unnecessarily hard. And to score 90 points, you need to keep trying to score, instead of playing possession and time. Have you never played a sport? If you play with a niece or nephew, do you kick their asses?
Did you miss my post earlier where I explain what I do when I play board games with nieces and nephews?

Is "playing possession and time" playing to your utmost? When you say scoring is 'unnecessary': scoring is how the game tracks who the winner is.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,225
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
There have been some really well articulated descriptions of why this action by the coach was considered wrong by the sporting community. And references to previous cases where the same behaviour was also considered wrong by the sporting community. There has been detailed explanation of how running records are kept by time, and basketball records are kept by number of wins, not total score, showing the difference between the examples. Also shared have been examples of rules within the sporting community to measure and limit this behavior.

I don’t think there is any gap in the explanations, nor the clarity that this is a position agreed upon in the sporting comunity.

It appears the gap is only that one person (well, two, including the coach) doesn’t value this stance. I think we all get that. But it is not because the explanations have not been clear, and supported by sound argument. It’s just a person saying, I don’t see any problem with acting in a way that damages community, if it means I get to say I smashed my opponent, and a whole sporting complex that says, “that’s fine for you, but not what we are about.” And the first person saying, you are all wrong - all of you - because I don’t value that.

Got it. We hear you. You don’t value that.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I don’t think there is any gap in the explanations, nor the clarity that this is a position agreed upon in the sporting comunity.
Of course there is a gap in the explanation. Nobody has explained why different scoring methods make a difference to the moral obligation of an athlete. People have suggested, without evidence, that the distress caused by runners trouncing the competition is somehow less than the distress caused by a team winning by a lot of points.
It’s just a person saying, I don’t see any problem with acting in a way that damages community, if it means I get to say I smashed my opponent, and a whole sporting complex that says, “that’s fine for you, but not what we are about.” And the first person saying, you are all wrong - all of you - because I don’t value that.
No, Rhea. I disagree with people's premises and therefore their conclusions.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
What, in your opinion, is the difference in value in beating your opponent by 30 points vs beating your opponent by 90 points?
"Value"?

What, in your opinion, is the difference in distress in a runner being trounced by multiple seconds instead of a fraction of a second?

What rules would decent people implement for high school basketball games in order to ensure drubbings are not experienced? Explain it to me like I'm 5. Tell me the steps. Tell me how much is too much. Put a number on it. Tell me the dividing line of how to stop an asshole acting like an asshole. Tell me what the girls on the winning team ought to have done, if they were decent people. Tell me when the evaluation of 'too many points' is made and the exact actions they ought take. Tell me how they can play the rest of the game in order not to look like they are being condescending to the other team. Is the dividing line 30 points?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I don’t think there is any gap in the explanations, nor the clarity that this is a position agreed upon in the sporting comunity.
Of course there is a gap in the explanation. Nobody has explained why different scoring methods make a difference to the moral obligation of an athlete. People have suggested, without evidence, that the distress caused by runners trouncing the competition is somehow less than the distress caused by a team winning by a lot of points.
Totally false. There have been plenty of explanations that you either don't understand or don't accept.
It’s just a person saying, I don’t see any problem with acting in a way that damages community, if it means I get to say I smashed my opponent, and a whole sporting complex that says, “that’s fine for you, but not what we are about.” And the first person saying, you are all wrong - all of you - because I don’t value that.
No, Rhea. I disagree with people's premises and therefore their conclusions.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that you don't understand.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,123
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

What rules would decent people implement for high school basketball games in order to ensure drubbings are not experienced? Explain it to me like I'm 5. Tell me the steps. Tell me how much is too much. Put a number on it. Tell me the dividing line of how to stop an asshole acting like an asshole. Tell me what the girls on the winning team ought to have done, if they were decent people. Tell me when the evaluation of 'too many points' is made and the exact actions they ought take. Tell me how they can play the rest of the game in order not to look like they are being condescending to the other team. Is the dividing line 30 points?
Many sports already have such rules. In college, if one team is ahead by at least 10 runs, the game can be stopped if both teams agree. In some states, there is a 10 goal rule for soccer - game ends when one team is ahead by 10 goals. So a conference could institute a ___ point rule (when the score differential is at least ___, the game is over).

If the players on the Sacred Heart team were decent people, they would have gone into a zone defense which is not as aggressive. If there was a shot clock, they could have made sure to take almost all the time off before shooting when on offense. On offense, when they shot, they could used their weaker hand. They clearly could have not gone for 3 pointers. If there was no shot clock, they could have played the stall game - pass the ball around.

Again, none of this is rocket science to anyone who is even remotely familiar with HS sports.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,871
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Many sports already have such rules. In college, if one team is ahead by at least 10 runs, the game can be stopped if both teams agree. In some states, there is a 10 goal rule for soccer - game ends when one team is ahead by 10 goals. So a conference could institute a ___ point rule (when the score differential is at least ___, the game is over).
So, in order to protect the world from asshole girls playing basketball, there ought be a similar rule set up for high school basketball. Remember, there are those of us out there--like myself and this coach--who are not decent people, and we need clear rules to control our wild impulse to be assholes.
If the players on the Sacred Heart team were decent people, they would have gone into a zone defense which is not as aggressive. If there was a shot clock, they could have made sure to take almost all the time off before shooting when on offense. On offense, when they shot, they could used their weaker hand. They clearly could have not gone for 3 pointers. If there was no shot clock, they could have played the stall game - pass the ball around.

Again, none of this is rocket science to anyone who is even remotely familiar with HS sports.
And what if they did that and still scored more points? Would they still be assholes?

You also haven't told me when the point differential goes from 'a well-deserved victory' to 'asshole girls and their asshole coach' territory. Remember, I don't know anything about sports and I'm not decent people, so give me a number I can work with.
 
Top Bottom