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

[Metaphor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Toni]

What, in your opinion, is the difference in value in beating your opponent by 30 points vs beating your opponent by 90 points?

 

[Metaphor]

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]

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]

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]

Totally false. There have been plenty of explanations that you either don't understand or don't accept.

It's true I don't accept them, because they are incoherent.

 

[Metaphor]

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.