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.