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

[Metaphor]

'No Mercy': School Basketball Coach Suspended After His Team Won By Too Many Points

If your team wins a basketball game convincingly - say by 88 points - even a performance as such might not be the best thing for you as a coach, as Jason Kirck found out the hard way.

www.indiatimes.com

If your team wins a basketball game convincingly - say by 88 points - even a performance as such might not be the best thing for you as a coach, as Jason Kirck found out the hard way.

Kirck was suspended after his team defeated another school by a huge margin, embarrassing them in the process, The Hill reported.

The win, a drubbing by all means, was deemed to be unsportsmanlike by the school and coach Kirck was suspended for one match.

Sacred Heart Academy suspended coach Jason Kirck after the 92-4 victory over Lyman Hall on January 3 in US' Connecticut and issued an apology, the Associated Press reported.

“Sacred Heart Academy values the lessons taught and cultivated through athletic participation including ethical and responsible behavior, leadership and strength of character and respect for one’s opponents,” Sister Sheila O’Neill, the school's president, wrote.

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

Tom Lipka, the coach of Lyman Hall, told the Hartford Courant that the Kirck’s team “showed no mercy throughout.”

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

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which oversees high school sports in the state, said it runs a program called “Class Act” which teaches coaches to be aware of the competitive balance in games and manage to score “in a manner that is sportsmanlike and respectful of opponents.”

Sacred Heart is not among the schools that have participated in that program, the organization said, as per AP.

I heard about this on a podcast and when I searched it on google, I actually got links to a different story as well - this kind of thing has apparently happened before:

HS coach given 2-game ban after 161-2 win

A Southern California high school basketball coach has been suspended after his team won a game 161-2, one of the most lopsided scores in state history.

www.espn.com.au

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. -- A Southern California high school basketball coach has been suspended and faces accusations of mercilessly running up the score after his team won a game 161-2, one of the most lopsided scores in state history.

Arroyo Valley High girls' coach Michael Anderson was suspended for two games after the victory last week against Bloomington High.

Anderson said that he wasn't trying to run up the score or embarrass the opposition. His team had won four previous games by at least 70 points, and Bloomington had already lost a game by 91.

"The game just got away from me," Anderson told the San Bernardino Sun on Friday. "I didn't play any starters in the second half. I didn't expect them to be that bad. I'm not trying to embarrass anybody."

He says if he had it to do again, he'd have played only reserves after the first quarter, or, "I wouldn't play the game at all."

But Bloomington coach Dale Chung says Arroyo Valley used a full-court press for the entire first half to lead 104-1 at halftime.

"People shouldn't feel sorry for my team," Chung said. "They should feel sorry for his team, which isn't learning the game the right way."

Anderson has served one game of the suspension, a game his team won 80-19 with his son Nick at the helm. He'll return after sitting out one more.

"He's a great X's and O's coach," Chung said. "Ethically? Not so much. He knows what he did was wrong."

You couldn't make it up.

 

[zorq]

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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

 

[TSwizzle]

There was a recent high school football game in the Los Angeles area where the winners ran up the score to something ridiculous and to add insult to injury the team was going for two point conversions when they were already out of sight. I don't know how often this sort of thing happens, I think it's quite rare. It is unsportsmanlike to go to this extreme and indicates that the coach is a douche. Generally when a game is so one sided the coach takes their foot off the pedal, throws in the second, third string players. In softball we used to only take one base even if it was a home run. I think it's just mean and demeaning to grind a team down like that. I don't know what a coach would get out of thrashing another team like that.

 

[Metaphor]

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

That's the Vernon Hills program, but I don't see anything in it that somehow conflicts with what Sacred Heart did. Indeed, I can't see how the team could have 'taken a dive' and still fulfilled all the goals listed above.

What should the Sacred Heart coach have done in order to not 'humiliate' his opponents? Should he have ordered his girls to stop playing or putting in effort at half time? Would that have been more sportsmanlike? Do the girls on his team also need to be convincing actors, in order to give the illusion they are still trying their best?

 

[Metaphor]

There was a recent high school football game in the Los Angeles area where the winners ran up the score to something ridiculous and to add insult to injury the team was going for two point conversions when they were already out of sight. I don't know how often this sort of thing happens, I think it's quite rare. It is unsportsmanlike to go to this extreme and indicates that the coach is a douche. Generally when a game is so one sided the coach takes their foot off the pedal, throws in the second, third string players. In softball we used to only take one base even if it was a home run. I think it's just mean and demeaning to grind a team down like that. I don't know what a coach would get out of thrashing another team like that.

At what point does the coach have to take his foot off the pedal? Is there a point difference at half time that can be evaluated? What's the point difference, or does it depend?

 

[TSwizzle]

There was a recent high school football game in the Los Angeles area where the winners ran up the score to something ridiculous and to add insult to injury the team was going for two point conversions when they were already out of sight. I don't know how often this sort of thing happens, I think it's quite rare. It is unsportsmanlike to go to this extreme and indicates that the coach is a douche. Generally when a game is so one sided the coach takes their foot off the pedal, throws in the second, third string players. In softball we used to only take one base even if it was a home run. I think it's just mean and demeaning to grind a team down like that. I don't know what a coach would get out of thrashing another team like that.

At what point does the coach have to take his foot off the pedal? Is there a point difference at half time that can be evaluated? What's the point difference, or does it depend?

There is no firm point in most cases. When I coached soccer and your team were 5-0 up after ten minutes and your team has been parked in your opponents half, you have to ease up. In softball there is a mercy rule, they stop playing if one team is ahead by more than x number of runs with two innings left or something. There's no harm in winning by a large margin but you know when things are going to get ridiculous and to me, there is no fun on being on either side of it.


And why is this in politics ?

 

[Jarhyn]

Make sure the players have an enjoyable experience does not specify which players.

It is in fact at odds with "drub the other team's players miserably".

 

[Metaphor]

Make sure the players have an enjoyable experience does not specify which players.

It is in fact at odds with "drub the other team's players miserably".

It is not, though you've certainly gone to pains to make your rhetoric match your implicit assumptions.

But more the point, "make sure the players have an enjoyable experience" is an impossible goal. What if they only enjoy it when they win? Are you required to lose? What if they only enjoy it if they think they've beaten the odds? Are you required to maintain a certain reputation and then act as if they played their utmost?

What is a miserable drubbing? Is a moderate drubbing allowable? Who gets to call the severity of the drubbing? Are runners told to hold back performance so the slower runners can not be so miserably drubbed? Why not?

 

[Gospel]

If a team is that good they basically set the standard of what good basketball is thus setting the goal of one of the objectives being

1. Improve the basketball skills of the players in the program

After all, if they plan to do basketball on a professional level in the future the higher and sooner the difficulty level is, the better. I do consider 94-4 overkill. Even the NBA players don't do that with coaches sitting out their star players when the lead is far enough. Not sure what the details are in this case but if even the coach's bench was unbeatable there is nothing that can be done.

 

[Gospel]

Look, I used to play basketball for leisure back in my old days (yeah I'm only 47 but still) at a wreck center in Central Islip NY. Imma tell ya straight out, niggas out there weren't nice at all. Lots of fouls and games to 21 (with each basket being 1pt and 3s where 2s) where 21-0 happened along with vulgar smack talking. I went right back out there every weekend until I was the one talking shit.

 

[laughing dog]

High school sports in the USA are supposed to build good sportsmanship. Running up scores is not good sportsmanship - it is considered adding insult to the sting of a loss.

Running up the score does not improve the skills of the players of the winning team, because they are not being physically or mentally challenged.

Furthermore, when one team is running up a score, it is possible that a player (or players) on the losing side may not take their drubbing as good sports and attempt to hurt or maim the opposition.

It is not hard to tell one's players to take it slower. In basketball, one could tell the players they have to make 6 passes and can only shoot with their weaker hand. Good coaches know how to do this. Good coaches do it.

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

Learning is not a competition, so your math example is silly.

If you really cannot distinguish between a team sport where score differential matters not and achieving a personal best in an individual sport, there is no hope for rational discussion.

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

Learning is not a competition, so your math example is silly.

His performance affected our scores, however. But how strange to say learning is not a competition. Sports are indeed a competition. The entire premise is to beat the opponent doing whatever the sport is.

If you really cannot distinguish between a team sport where score differential matters not and achieving a personal best in an individual sport, there is no hope for rational discussion.

I did not say I could not distinguish between them. I'm asking for the moral difference. They are both competitions. You clearly do not expect any runner to hold back on their performance lest they hurt the feelings of the other competitors, yet you expect team sports players to collectively hold back their performance lest they hurt the feelings of the other competitors.

What's the moral difference, and why?

 

[Jarhyn]

It's interesting that some people can't tell a difference between offering a form of competition that can be educational, and one that can only be masturbatory.

It cannot be educational, and let me remind that this is a game sponsored by and for an educational body, to run up scores...

...Unless that education is on "object lessons in shitty behavior", to which the punchline is "and look at where that got him." And so the headline is an example of good educational practice.

Competition is done in most settings for sporting fun. Someone wins, someone loses, but both sides agree that it is in good fun, and that the competition is really an illusion, a mockery of evil, so that we learn better the physical skills needed to challenge it!

At least when sports are played right.

When sports are not played right, they are taken not as a friendly meeting of equal persons for a passing suspension of disbelief in love, but as a true battle...

Well, then response measures happen, and is why rules exist. When "we" inevitably have a responsibility to exert leverage, because someone decided to play "leverage"

 

[ZiprHead]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

There's a difference between a shutout season even and running scores.

Playing 5 7-0 games is somehow more skillful than playing 5 21-0 games.

It means a level of skill, and in many ways a chance for response and recovery.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

Learning is not a competition, so your math example is silly.

His performance affected our scores, however.

That performance affected your adjusted scores. So what?

But how strange to say learning is not a competition.

It is strange to say that learning is a competition.

Sports are indeed a competition. The entire premise is to beat the opponent doing whatever the sport is.

Yes, do you have a point? Do you understand that team that wins 94 to 4 also wins if the score is 74 to 14?

If you really cannot distinguish between a team sport where score differential matters not and achieving a personal best in an individual sport, there is no hope for rational discussion.

I did not say I could not distinguish between them.

I observed you have a problem distinguishing between them. Your response simply provides supporting evidence for my observation.

I'm asking for the moral difference. They are both competitions. You clearly do not expect any runner to hold back on their performance lest they hurt the feelings of the other competitors, yet you expect team sports players to collectively hold back their performance lest they hurt the feelings of the other competitors.

I seen races where faster runners have decided to run backwards to deliberately embarrass other racers. Running up a score is done 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.

What's the moral difference, and why?

See above and read Jarhyn's explanation as well.