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

[laughing dog]

Defending and scoring against a player playing at 50% is learning from 50% of what's offered. Its like saying you learn as much from a punching bag as you do from a boxer in the ring.

Why do you assume that refraining from scoring is playing at 50%?

 

[Toni]

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.

Sure, why not? You have no evidence that this happened, but because the coach is an asshole, it is certainly consistent with that.

My post was obviously speculation.

And as I said, since you have determined the character of the coach from the outcome of a single game (not just his behaviour in one game mind, his entire character of 'asshole'), I was merely trying to be helpful to our audience to show how you are able to infer other things that might have happened that are consistent with the coach being an asshole.

No. Doing one jerky thing does not mean that you are a jerk.

The only thing anyone ‘knows’about this situation is what is reported. Everything else is informed by people’s individual perspectives and experiences.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I was humiliated to have my bottom of the barrel athletic ability put on such public display.

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.

The 'goal' of team sports is to win, and you win by playing to your utmost and scoring as many points as it is possible for you to score. Sometimes, all the points you can get isn't enough and you'll lose.

Nope - the goal of team sports is to win within the rules and spirit of the game which includes good sportsmanship.

You keep repeating the false premise that one wins by playing to your utmost and scoring as many points as possible for you to score.

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.

I didn't try to give my "permission". I'm discussing something on a message board.

Continue to do you - defend asshole behavior.

 

[Metaphor]

No. Doing one jerky thing does not mean that you are a jerk.

I apologise. I misremembered who was essentialist about the coach. It was not you, but 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.

 

[Metaphor]

You keep repeating the false premise that one wins by playing to your utmost and scoring as many points as possible for you to score.

That is how one wins.

Discussion requires recognition of other points of view - something lacking in your responses.

Are you talking about yourself? When I say individuals in individual races who lose by a lot can be humiliated by that, you did not acknowledge that as valid. Why not?

 

[Jarhyn]

Defending and scoring against a player playing at 50% is learning from 50% of what's offered. Its like saying you learn as much from a punching bag as you do from a boxer in the ring.

The player isn't playing at 50% when a coach is doing his job right.

Every player always plays 100% in a world where the teams are representative of their populations.

It just means your coach plays different players, whose 100% is closer, but still better than, the opposing team. Score stops going up so fast and if he has to, he plays entirely equal players.

That way the better players get to "yah we're better!" And then more of the 'rents of the bigger high school have a reason to warm seats, since their kid isn't just.

 

[laughing dog]

You keep repeating the false premise that one wins by playing to your utmost and scoring as many points as possible for you to score.

That is how one wins.

No, one wins by outscoring the opponent. It is a win by one point of 90 points.

Discussion requires recognition of other points of view - something lacking in your responses.

Are you talking about yourself?

Sigh, as your response proves, I am referring to you.

When I say individuals in individual races who lose by a lot can be humiliated by that, you did not acknowledge that as valid. Why not?

I did not. The point of racing is to run as fast as you can. Winning is the hopeful byproduct of that goal. Runners understand that. Of course there are people who get embarrassed or humiliated about things that cannot be helped. A runner might be humiliated by losing by one second. That doesn't mean the winner should have tried to run slower to lose the race.
Really, if you thought about your argument, you'd realize how silly it truly is.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not. The point of racing is to run as fast as you can. Winning is the hopeful byproduct of that goal. Runners understand that. Of course there are people who get embarrassed or humiliated about things that cannot be helped. A runner might be humiliated by losing by one second. That doesn't mean the winner should have tried to run slower to lose the race.
Really, if you thought about your argument, you'd realize how silly it truly is.

I have thought about it a lot. It is you who has not thought about it. Your only response to the humiliation runners feel is 'you are irrational to feel that'.

I find you fundamentally lacking in empathy on that point.

 

[Jarhyn]

I did not. The point of racing is to run as fast as you can. Winning is the hopeful byproduct of that goal. Runners understand that. Of course there are people who get embarrassed or humiliated about things that cannot be helped. A runner might be humiliated by losing by one second. That doesn't mean the winner should have tried to run slower to lose the race.
Really, if you thought about your argument, you'd realize how silly it truly is.

I have thought about it a lot. It is you who has not thought about it. Your only response to the humiliation runners feel is 'you are irrational to feel that'.

I find you fundamentally lacking in empathy on that point.

No. This is pointedly YOUR response, or am I missing something? Or is your point that they SHOULD feel humiliation?

My thought is that they feel what they feel, and the proper response is to recognize that and help them feel some other way if it is within our power.

I have no power over how runners feel as the coach of a running team (edit: other than to communicate good philosophies for handling and controlling unproductive emotions).

I have immense power over how players feel as the coach of a basketball team.

I recognize that it is within my power, as the coach of a basketball team, to have every player player play their best and gain skill and win, if my team is good enough and/or my coaching does not suck, even without embarrassing others.

As the coach of a track team, best I can do is keep everyone doing their best and make sure they understand that racing is a sport you compete in against yourself, first and foremost, and to help all the runners come to peace with what winning in that arena looks like.

 

[Metaphor]

No. This is pointedly YOUR response, or am I missing something? Or is your point that they SHOULD feel humiliation?

My point is that runners could feel the same intensity of humiliation from losing by a large margin that the losing basketball team allegedly feels from a drubbing.

laughing dog singularly refuses to acknowledge that any runner could feel such a thing, or if they do, they are irrational to do so. No runner is required to alter her performance because of the feelings of the less athletic. Not altering her performance does not make her an asshole, despite the side effect of humiliation for others.

Yet, the humiliation a basketball team feels from a drubbing does require a mid-stream change in performance. The side effect of humiliation is now important enough that if you don't change what you are doing, you are a 'first class' asshole.

laughing dog proposes that one behaviour is assholish when done in a basketball context, but the same behaviour is not assholish in a running context, despite the same side effect of humiliation in the losers.

I find his selective empathy incoherent.

 

[Jarhyn]

No. This is pointedly YOUR response, or am I missing something? Or is your point that they SHOULD feel humiliation?

My point is that runners could feel the same intensity of humiliation from losing by a large margin that the losing basketball team allegedly feels from a drubbing.

laughing dog singularly refuses to acknowledge that any runner could feel such a thing, or if they do, they are irrational to do so. No runner is required to alter her performance because of the feelings of the less athletic. Not altering her performance does not make her an asshole, despite the side effect of humiliation for others.

Yet, the humiliation a basketball team feels from a drubbing does require a mid-stream change in performance. The side effect of humiliation is now important enough that if you don't change what you are doing, you are a 'first class' asshole.

laughing dog proposes that one behaviour is assholish when done in a basketball context, but the same behaviour is not assholish in a running context, despite the same side effect of humiliation in the losers.

I find his selective empathy incoherent.

Not a midstream change in performance. A midstream change in performers.

You are not changing what you are doing as players. You are being rearranged by the coach and asked to warm a bench.

It is the coach doing the selection.

At track, every runner is selected.

At basketball a subset is selected.

Having an appropriate range of subsets, and selecting from them appropriately to the game is part of coaching.

The correct course of action is to select of your team the players who will give the other team a good game and your school a good win, not select of your team the players who will give the other team a miserable, uneducational game and your team a gross win.

The sports even have different competitive philosophies around them!

 

[Metaphor]

Not a midstream change in performance. A midstream change in performers.

The coach did that.

You are not changing what you are doing as players. You are being rearranged by the coach and asked to warm a bench.

laughing dog proposed several performance changes from the players as well.

 

[Metaphor]

The sports even have different competitive philosophies around them!

So...the humiliation runners feel is not, in fact, important, and you agree with laughing dog?

 

[Rhea]

Nope - the goal of team sports is to win within the rules and spirit of the game which includes good sportsmanship.

You keep repeating the false premise that one wins by playing to your utmost and scoring as many points as possible for you to score.

Indeed, a good example of this is the team that wins by always being as intensely aggressive and physical as possible.. They go right up to the limits. They shove, they shoulder, they crowd. They do it on every move. They are playing to their utmost. Playing to win. Playing to score as much as possible. And everyone in the league thinks they are assholes and that is no way to win.

The teams in the league know that they are technically legal in everything they do. But their sportsmanship is poor and they do not advance the sport.

In the case in this news item, recall that the coach was suspended for only ONE game. This is not a severe punishment, it’s not a career-ending decision. It is ONE game. It’s a message. A strong reminder. When, in a high school situation, the coach won in an unsportsmanlike manner a high-point margin.

It’s pointed out several times in the article quoted in the OP, pasted below for a reminder.

The team didn’t just win. They went for steals; they changed their strategy from press to man-on-man when they saw how bad the team was and played to embarass them. The article states several times that it was not just the score. It was the manner in which they did it.

There are more articles from Connecticut (where the schools are) and NYT on the issue, including the coach’s regret at his decisions that night to play full press and maximising turrnovers.

Sacred Heart Academy girls basketball coach 'deeply regretful' for beating opponent by 88 points

In his first public comments following a one-game suspension, Sacred Heart Academy coach...

www.ctinsider.com

A School Won 92-4 in Basketball. Then the Coach Was Suspended. (Published 2022)

Sacred Heart Academy, a Catholic high school for girls in Hamden, Conn., said that running up the score against Lyman Hall High School did not mesh with its values.

www.nytimes.com

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.”

 

[Metaphor]

The team didn’t just win. They went for steals; they changed their strategy from press to man-on-man when they saw how bad the team was and played to embarass them.

How do you know that that is why they did what they did?

 

[Toni]

The team didn’t just win. They went for steals; they changed their strategy from press to man-on-man when they saw how bad the team was and played to embarass them.

How do you know that that is why they did what they did?

She probably read the article above. I did.

 

[laughing dog]

No. This is pointedly YOUR response, or am I missing something? Or is your point that they SHOULD feel humiliation?

My point is that runners could feel the same intensity of humiliation from losing by a large margin that the losing basketball team allegedly feels from a drubbing.

So?

laughing dog singularly refuses to acknowledge that any runner could feel such a thing, or if they do, they are irrational to do so. No runner is required to alter her performance because of the feelings of the less athletic. Not altering her performance does not make her an asshole, despite the side effect of humiliation for others.

More of another straw man. Runners are supposed to run as fast as they can. If that causes a wide margin of victory, that is a consequence of their goal.

To goal of a basketball game is to win within the rules and good sportsmanship. Winning by the largest possible margin is a necessary outcome of that goal.

Yet, the humiliation a basketball team feels from a drubbing does require a mid-stream change in performance. The side effect of humiliation is now important enough that if you don't change what you are doing, you are a 'first class' asshole.

laughing dog proposes that one behaviour is assholish when done in a basketball context, but the same behaviour is not assholish in a running context, despite the same side effect of humiliation in the losers.

I find his selective empathy incoherent.

I do not propose anything. I am stating a well and widely recognized view of sportsmanship in the context of team sports. One that has been institutionalized in the competition rules in some sport in some places.
I
Please continue to do as you do - defend assholish behavior.

 

[laughing dog]

The team didn’t just win. They went for steals; they changed their strategy from press to man-on-man when they saw how bad the team was and played to embarass them.

How do you know that that is why they did what they did?

She probably read the article above. I did.

Yeah, facts do get in the way of positions.

Anyone who knows about basketball, knows that presses and tight man to man defense is used to create pressure and steals while zone defenses typically do not. When you have a 30 to 40 point lead, you don't need to fast break.

 

[Rhea]

When you have a 30 to 40 point lead, you don't need to fast break

And at the time the coach called for this strategy change, they were up fifty to zero. 50. To. 0. And he told them to start playing man to man, get the steals, rack up the points.

 

[Metaphor]

She probably read the article above. I did.

The article said the team did it in order to embarrass the other side?

Or did the article actually describe some actions that were taken, and you and Rhea made an assumption that the coach did it to embarrass the other side? I think you'll find it was the latter.