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

[Jarhyn]

I don't think that the coach should be suspended. Even if it was a 222-0 beatdown. If you're getting the shit kicked out of you, then you need to find a way to play better or maybe basketball just isn't for you.

If they are winning 90something to 4 clearly the opposition is a team they shouldn't even be playing. That isn't a 'they shouldn't be playing basketball', it is a 'one team has a much better pool of players to choose from' thing.

It's a highschool team. Every team plays every other. As to whether THAT is appropriate, it's an entirely different question, I think.

Here, the question is "why, of what is clearly a much larger highschool, do we not expect them to seat proportionate numbers of players so that they may select a set of them such that the set selected is still better than the team, or even their equals, while running the first press with the starters, and subbing them in if the score diverges?"

If a school has more students, this just means that a larger percentage of their student body is being excluded from the sport. That's not even fair to the students at the bigger school who wish to play, even if it's vs the smaller district teams.

This is starting to remind me of Harrison Bergeron. We could make the better team strap on ankle weights.

We don't know what advantages one school might have over another. Small pool of talent or large to select from. Mountains of cash for support or BYOB. Or possibly other impediments to training one might have over another. This is just another reason sportsmanship is so important.

Not ankle weights. Just, allowing less-good players to rotate in.

Winning consistently with LOW spread is more skillful and supports the goals of the program in a way that running scores up does not.

It also really fucks with the bookies.

 

[Gospel]

Good. Then you should understand that the point of a race is to run as fast as you can.

The point of playing a team game is to win by playing within the rules and with good sportsmanship.

So: good sportsmanship is not part of individual races? Or rather, I suspect you would say 'the humiliation you cause the losing runners by your margin of victory is not considered in the definition of 'good sportsmanship' in individual running races'.

Individual racing is not only about beating your competition but beating yourself.

And If I had the chance to break the national Highschool records in basketball, best believe yo ass Imma do it. Screw the other team's feelings. I do understand and respect sportsmanship so I'll be sure to shake hands and smack butts at the end of the game. Then write a book about my hero's on the opposing team that made it all possible.

 

[Jarhyn]

Good. Then you should understand that the point of a race is to run as fast as you can.

The point of playing a team game is to win by playing within the rules and with good sportsmanship.

So: good sportsmanship is not part of individual races? Or rather, I suspect you would say 'the humiliation you cause the losing runners by your margin of victory is not considered in the definition of 'good sportsmanship' in individual running races'.

Individual racing is not only about beating your competition but beating yourself.

And If I had the chance to break the national Highschool records in basketball, best believe yo ass Imma do it. Screw the other team's feelings. I do understand and respect sportsmanship so I'll be sure to shake hands and smack butts at the end of the game. Then write a book about my hero's on the opposing team that made it all possible.

And shame on your coach if he doesn't bench you after the first quarter, and you're playing a crappy team.

Sure, do your best on the court (within whatever bounds your coach places on your play), but shame on him for leaving you there.

 

[Toni]

I don't think that the coach should be suspended. Even if it was a 222-0 beatdown. If you're getting the shit kicked out of you, then you need to find a way to play better or maybe basketball just isn't for you.

If they are winning 90something to 4 clearly the opposition is a team they shouldn't even be playing. That isn't a 'they shouldn't be playing basketball', it is a 'one team has a much better pool of players to choose from' thing.

It's a highschool team. Every team plays every other. As to whether THAT is appropriate, it's an entirely different question, I think.

Here, the question is "why, of what is clearly a much larger highschool, do we not expect them to seat proportionate numbers of players so that they may select a set of them such that the set selected is still better than the team, or even their equals, while running the first press with the starters, and subbing them in if the score diverges?"

If a school has more students, this just means that a larger percentage of their student body is being excluded from the sport. That's not even fair to the students at the bigger school who wish to play, even if it's vs the smaller district teams.

This is starting to remind me of Harrison Bergeron. We could make the better team strap on ankle weights.

We don't know what advantages one school might have over another. Small pool of talent or large to select from. Mountains of cash for support or BYOB. Or possibly other impediments to training one might have that another does not. This is just another reason sportsmanship is so important.

It doesn't matter what advantage one team had over the other or why. Sometimes, a small rural school with a very small student body manages to mount an extremely good team that is well coached and wins championships. See the movie Hoosiers for a movie example but IRL, the movie is loosely based on another real team in Indiana. For another real life example, the next small town down the road from where I lived was a school with an exceptionally good basketball team, long before I was born. Way back in the 1920's, their basketball team 3 state basketball championships in a row, against much larger and more well funded teams. By the time I was in high school, that town was usually slightly better than our team but we were competitive and sometimes won against them. That particular team in the 20's was just extremely talented and extremely well coached.

Anyway, none of that matters. If one competitor or team finds that they are dramatically better than the other team, then they should do what they can to either even up the match: play second or 3rd stringers, insist that shots only be taken from (some point on the court) or that only the guards can shoot, etc. A score that disparate is shameful for both teams. And pointless. The team being beaten so badly is not learning a lesson that it didn't already know. The team that is winning is effectively not playing against an opponent. Both teams risk injury by being on the court, with the losing team perhaps taking more foolish chances or committing more hard fouls, etc. Nobody walks away looking like a winner, no matter what the scoreboard says. It's simply wrong.

Look, when I was a kid, I saw some exhibition basketball games played by the famous Harlem Globetrotters playing against whatever highschool or college team was local. It was more than obvious that the Globetrotters could handle the home team with very, very, very little effort. Mostly, they did a lot of exhibition shooting, showed off some dramatic skills and when the home team would start to get a little too close or even tie up the score, they'd play straight--and they always won their game--unless they decided not to win it. I'm not much of a sportsperson but even I could tell when I was just a kid when they were playing serious basketball and trying to win and when they were putting on a show for the audience. Few high school players have anything close to the ball handling skills of the Globetrotters and frankly, using them in a real game would perhaps be unsportsmanlike. My point was that a much more highly skilled team found ways to play such that the less skilled team was not blown out of the water. The Globetrotters would never have been popular if all they did was roll into town and give whatever team before them a good drumming. They played exhibition games for entertainment. And did not humiliate anyone.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think that the coach should be suspended. Even if it was a 222-0 beatdown. If you're getting the shit kicked out of you, then you need to find a way to play better or maybe basketball just isn't for you.

If they are winning 90something to 4 clearly the opposition is a team they shouldn't even be playing. That isn't a 'they shouldn't be playing basketball', it is a 'one team has a much better pool of players to choose from' thing.

It's a highschool team. Every team plays every other. As to whether THAT is appropriate, it's an entirely different question, I think.

Here, the question is "why, of what is clearly a much larger highschool, do we not expect them to seat proportionate numbers of players so that they may select a set of them such that the set selected is still better than the team, or even their equals, while running the first press with the starters, and subbing them in if the score diverges?"

If a school has more students, this just means that a larger percentage of their student body is being excluded from the sport. That's not even fair to the students at the bigger school who wish to play, even if it's vs the smaller district teams.

This is starting to remind me of Harrison Bergeron. We could make the better team strap on ankle weights.

We don't know what advantages one school might have over another. Small pool of talent or large to select from. Mountains of cash for support or BYOB. Or possibly other impediments to training one might have that another does not. This is just another reason sportsmanship is so important.

It doesn't matter what advantage one team had over the other or why. Sometimes, a small rural school with a very small student body manages to mount an extremely good team that is well coached and wins championships. See the movie Hoosiers for a movie example but IRL, the movie is loosely based on another real team in Indiana. For another real life example, the next small town down the road from where I lived was a school with an exceptionally good basketball team, long before I was born. Way back in the 1920's, their basketball team 3 state basketball championships in a row, against much larger and more well funded teams. By the time I was in high school, that town was usually slightly better than our team but we were competitive and sometimes won against them. That particular team in the 20's was just extremely talented and extremely well coached.

Anyway, none of that matters. If one competitor or team finds that they are dramatically better than the other team, then they should do what they can to either even up the match: play second or 3rd stringers, insist that shots only be taken from (some point on the court) or that only the guards can shoot, etc. A score that disparate is shameful for both teams. And pointless. The team being beaten so badly is not learning a lesson that it didn't already know. The team that is winning is effectively not playing against an opponent. Both teams risk injury by being on the court, with the losing team perhaps taking more foolish chances or committing more hard fouls, etc. Nobody walks away looking like a winner, no matter what the scoreboard says. It's simply wrong.

Look, when I was a kid, I saw some exhibition basketball games played by the famous Harlem Globetrotters playing against whatever highschool or college team was local. It was more than obvious that the Globetrotters could handle the home team with very, very, very little effort. Mostly, they did a lot of exhibition shooting, showed off some dramatic skills and when the home team would start to get a little too close or even tie up the score, they'd play straight--and they always won their game--unless they decided not to win it. I'm not much of a sportsperson but even I could tell when I was just a kid when they were playing serious basketball and trying to win and when they were putting on a show for the audience. Few high school players have anything close to the ball handling skills of the Globetrotters and frankly, using them in a real game would perhaps be unsportsmanlike. My point was that a much more highly skilled team found ways to play such that the less skilled team was not blown out of the water. The Globetrotters would never have been popular if all they did was roll into town and give whatever team before them a good drumming. They played exhibition games for entertainment. And did not humiliate anyone.

You know, I've never seen a sports movie where I liked "the bad guys" just because "the bad guys" drubbed the protagonists.

In fact, such dubbings are used quite pointedly as a basis for establishing the badness of "the bad guys".

 

[Rhea]

If a school has more students, this just means that a larger percentage of their student body is being excluded from the sport. That's not even fair to the students at the bigger school who wish to play, even if it's vs the smaller district teams

This has always bothered me about high school sports a large schools.

As a taxpayer, I want the sports program to be accessible to ALL students for the purpose of learnning ways to enjoy lifetime fitness and camaraderie. I do not give a fuck about division titles, they are meaningless.

So in a large school, I expect the sports program to be available to all students and participate in appropriate leagues. And if that means a varsity, and a jr varsity, and a jr jr jr varsity, or if it means an A-varsity and a B-varsity so that all the students have an opportunity to play, then that is what should be done. And if it requires and internal school leage where 8 teams play round robin, then that should be available, too.

I am not a supporter of these idea that a title is more important to spend taxpayer money on than a larger pool of kids. Nope, not ever.

 

[Gospel]

In fact, such dubbings are used quite pointedly as a basis for establishing the badness of "the bad guys".

Nah, it's usually Unsportsmanlike conduct in the form of overly violent assaults on the field. Not just the other team being better.

 

[Rhea]

Recalling a great sportsmanship moment from my own past;

I’m running a half marathon. (I am not a runner. I am doing this because my daughter asked me to train with her, and one never says “no” to a 13yo who is requesting many hours of your company).

The race is a very hilly race, which doesn’t bother me at all as I will be walking a great deal of it either way.

At any rate, I am dead last. Last last. Already, after mile 2. Someone has to be last. But I’m not here for the win, anyway. The course is a “lollipop” course, meaning it goes out, does a loop and then joins back to the original path a couple of miles before the finish.

At about mile 2.5 (of the 13-mile race) I am doing my shuffle jog up an incline of about 600 feet (context: look at topo map of Cornell Uni), with the sweep riders patiently pacing me from behind, when down the hill comes the race leader, with the lead-bikes keeping an eye on him. As I huff and shuffle, I give him a thumbs up and a ragged clapping. He applauds me loudly and shouts, “you’re doing great! You’ve got this!” It was such a nice thing to do.

And then, of course, my daughter goes a step further (pun intended) and after she finishes, she gets a water, high-fives her dad, and turns around and starts running back up the course. Workers are telling her she’s going the wrong way, she’s shouting back, “I’m going to get my mom! She’s still running!” She runs 2 miles back to where I am, and then stays with me for my last two miles. (I tell the workers as we pass, “she came back to get me!” They reply, “we know!”)


Anyway, story is intended to share that there’s a way to win by miles, and there’s a way not to. And even while we were all each running our own race against our own goals, while that first place finisher had no reason to slow down for me (I never saw him except that one moment), there is, even then, a supportive pose and a dismissive or even mocking pose.

This coach clearly took the dismissive (or even mocking) pose, and that was unsportsmanlike, and this was clear to most of the people involved, based on the outcomes. The coach perhaps still thinks he did nothing wrong, but when there is a social backlash, sometimes one needs to admit the need for recalibration.

 

[horhangi]

Regarding runners winning by huge amounts. I ran track in high school and Gail Devers went to a school we competed against. Every time we competed against them all of the girl sprinters wanted to know what events she would be racing, because she would win those. One meet she ran the 330 hurdles, first time she had ever run that event. She fell on the first hurdle, on her face in the dirt. She still won the race. Thing is no one hated her or felt she was anything but nice. she won her races but was still a good sportsman, she congratulated her competitors on their races.

 

[Gospel]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

 

[laughing dog]

Good. Then you should understand that the point of a race is to run as fast as you can.

The point of playing a team game is to win by playing within the rules and with good sportsmanship.

So: good sportsmanship is not part of individual races? Or rather, I suspect you would say 'the humiliation you cause the losing runners by your margin of victory is not considered in the definition of 'good sportsmanship' in individual running races'.

Running as fast as you can is the goal of a race. Most runners understand that. It is not poor sportsmanship to embrace the goal of the sport. I find it fascinating you are unable to grasp this simple point. There would be no reason for them to feel humiliated.

Winning by as many points as possible is not the goal of team sport. The fact you are either unable or refuse to grasp that good sportsmanship means not running up the score while others can, reflects solely on you.

In some sports in some states, competition rules limit the scope (I mentioned some earlier), which indicates that there is a general acceptance of that sportsmanship in some areas to actually legislate it. Having played a number of youth and high school sports, and officiated high school and college sports, I know there are plenty of coaches who also embrace that idea of sportsmanship. I also know there are plenty who don't.

No one needs your understanding, permission or approval on this issue. You continue to do you - defend asshole behavior with progressively thoughtless questions and examples.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

 

[Toni]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

OR: It had been discussed with the coach earlier that running up the score was unsportsmanlike and counter to whatever principles the school was trying to impart to its student body----and the coach ran up the score anyway.

 

[Gospel]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

Except that it's not the same parties. In fact, the only thing similar is the blow-out. Different coaches different teams different school boards. What is it about this coach that sets him apart from the others? Is it written anywhere in the school board's rules for coaches to avoid blowouts? My understanding is, the coach (losing team) can just bench everyone forcing a forfeit & the referee would award the win to the other team only with fewer points. The forfeiting team getting penalized (up to disqualified from the tournament entirely if done too many times) doesn't help teams in this situation either. So for them to get all high and mighty about sportsmanship while having rules in place that force underperforming teams to grind through a game where their opponents are clearly holding back is actually more humiliating than going down like warriors.

Maybe I am just being an ass but I don't see how holding back helps anyone improve their basketball skills win or lose anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Toni]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Did the same coach/same school win by such a large margin against this team? If not, then there are a couple of likely scenarios:

Sacred Heart has a different set of ethics that it expects its faculty and coaches to operate under compared with other schools that ran up the score and the coach violated this set of ethics.

Schools within a division are well known by other schools within the division, particularly with regards to any type of competition such as athletics. It could well be that within the division, school ADs had quietly talked with one another about the one school being so badly beaten repeatedly and how to proceed. There could well have been a gentleman's agreement that teams would not run up scores against one another or against this particular team--and the coach violated that agreement. It goes without saying that ADs would have spoken with their coaches about such expectations prior to any game.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

Except that it's not the same parties. In fact, the only thing similar is the blow-out. Different coaches different teams different school boards. What is it about this coach that sets him apart from the others? Is it written anywhere in the school board's rules for coaches to avoid blowouts? My understanding is, the coach (losing team) can just bench everyone forcing a forfeit & the referee would award the win to the other team only with fewer points. The forfeiting team getting penalized (up to disqualified from the tournament entirely if done too many times) doesn't help teams in this situation either. So for them to get all high and mighty about sportsmanship while having rules in place that force underperforming teams to grind through a game where their opponents are clearly holding back is actually more humiliating than going down like warriors.

Maybe I am just being an ass but I don't see how holding back helps anyone improve their basketball skills win or lose anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some are already being held back: the second and third stringers (or the kids entirely denied a team because their school has no 'fourth string').

The most effective game is always going to be between closely matched opponents with access to occasional examples of better strategy

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

OR: It had been discussed with the coach earlier that running up the score was unsportsmanlike and counter to whatever principles the school was trying to impart to its student body----and the coach ran up the score anyway.

To be clear, running up the score is 95 to 40. Giving up an average of one basket a half?! There is no term for that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

Except that it's not the same parties. In fact, the only thing similar is the blow-out. Different coaches different teams different school boards. What is it about this coach that sets him apart from the others? Is it written anywhere in the school board's rules for coaches to avoid blowouts? My understanding is, the coach (losing team) can just bench everyone forcing a forfeit & the referee would award the win to the other team only with fewer points. The forfeiting team getting penalized (up to disqualified from the tournament entirely if done too many times) doesn't help teams in this situation either. So for them to get all high and mighty about sportsmanship while having rules in place that force underperforming teams to grind through a game where their opponents are clearly holding back is actually more humiliating than going down like warriors.

Maybe I am just being an ass but I don't see how holding back helps anyone improve their basketball skills win or lose anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How in the heck is playing a team that you give up two baskets to (presumably) improving your skill on anything? If anything, you could work on ball control, killing the clock, passing, any number of things that doesn't involve humiliating your opponents.

 

[Gospel]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

Except that it's not the same parties. In fact, the only thing similar is the blow-out. Different coaches different teams different school boards. What is it about this coach that sets him apart from the others? Is it written anywhere in the school board's rules for coaches to avoid blowouts? My understanding is, the coach (losing team) can just bench everyone forcing a forfeit & the referee would award the win to the other team only with fewer points. The forfeiting team getting penalized (up to disqualified from the tournament entirely if done too many times) doesn't help teams in this situation either. So for them to get all high and mighty about sportsmanship while having rules in place that force underperforming teams to grind through a game where their opponents are clearly holding back is actually more humiliating than going down like warriors.

Maybe I am just being an ass but I don't see how holding back helps anyone improve their basketball skills win or lose anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some are already being held back: the second and third stringers (or the kids entirely denied a team because their school has no 'fourth string').

The most effective game is always going to be between closely matched opponents with access to occasional examples of better strategy

Man, now you got me going all philosophical so I've reached my personal limits on my own argument.

I see sports the same as I do in other fields of work/play. If you can learn it and do it well, you got it. There are a lot of people who want to do that thing you want to do so there is limited access to do it on a professional level for that reason alone. For those of you, not top talent, you can still do that thing on your personal time (as I did), no one is stopping you. That thing itself is always in need of improvements which it gets from talented individuals. If talented individuals are told to hold back the field suffers from slower reception of said much-needed talent ultimately shorting everyone of said talent. How do you think coaches build strategies? They review tapes of high-performing competitors because competitor coaches tended to build strategies around their high-performing athletes. Said strategy is built into workouts techniques to counter the competition.

High school is a place to find your strengths and weaknesses so that you can have a laser beam focus on selecting the best options for your college education. If you go through basketball holding hands in high school and think you can just George Jefferson walk into the NCAA you got another thing coming.

Low key I'm drawing from my dislike towards the totally unrelated ★★affirmative action★★.

 

[Gospel]

I'd like to see the game in question. Somehow I doubt there was anything other than kids playing basketball and the losing team giving it their all the whole time. Basketball games usually don't make it to 94-4 without breaking into a fight if any malice was involved. Besides, a quick google search reveals this is not the first time a blowout like this happened. Why all of a sudden a coach is punished now if that's something not known to be done before? Sounds to me like someone's mommy or daddy is on the school board.

Well, for the same reason that the first few times various posters brought up concerns about trans athletes, the threads were a little interesting, and the second time they were brought up a few years later from the same court they were fairly annoying, and then when they were brought up this last year or so by the same folks, they were grating and everyone could clearly recognize the orientation of the position.

One point is an anomaly, two points gives a suggestion of effect, three points gives a clear trend, and once a bad trend has been identified, any additional action on that trend requires response.

In short it takes a few instances to really generate a clear-enough case.

Except that it's not the same parties. In fact, the only thing similar is the blow-out. Different coaches different teams different school boards. What is it about this coach that sets him apart from the others? Is it written anywhere in the school board's rules for coaches to avoid blowouts? My understanding is, the coach (losing team) can just bench everyone forcing a forfeit & the referee would award the win to the other team only with fewer points. The forfeiting team getting penalized (up to disqualified from the tournament entirely if done too many times) doesn't help teams in this situation either. So for them to get all high and mighty about sportsmanship while having rules in place that force underperforming teams to grind through a game where their opponents are clearly holding back is actually more humiliating than going down like warriors.

Maybe I am just being an ass but I don't see how holding back helps anyone improve their basketball skills win or lose anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How in the heck is playing a team that you give up two baskets to (presumably) improving your skill on anything? If anything, you could work on ball control, killing the clock, passing, any number of things that doesn't involve humiliating your opponents.

After repeatedly giving up the ball you'll learn at some point to change tactics. You may not win but somewhere down the line, you'll find something that works. It's just unfortunate that the game is not only about passing as you'd have to do the same for defending & scoring. Maybe the losing team needs a new coach & captain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd love to actually watch this game. I bet 92-4 was a combination of poor training, lesser athletic abilities, giving up on defending & not capitalizing on possessions by taking nothing but easy shots.