11/21/24
May 25, 2006
Coaches face suspension for wins of 50-plus points: The football committee of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which governs high school sports, is adopting a "score management" policy that will suspend coaches whose teams win by more than 50 points.
Connecticut! Home of the girlie men.
posted by scotsman at 06:31 PM on May 25, 2006
This rule sounds like a good one to me. There's no good reason to hand another team a 50-point drubbing in any competition where sportsmanship matters.
posted by rcade at 06:41 PM on May 25, 2006
stupid stupid stupid!!!!!!!!
posted by airman at 06:45 PM on May 25, 2006
While I can understand not wanting to discourage or embarrass high school athletes, what the hell will be the point of putting the second string in when you're up by 30? "Ok second string, get in there and take a knee for the last 9 minutes of the 4th qtr". Maybe there should be a clause of some sort that would save the coach from trouble as long as his starters are pulled.
posted by Bishop at 06:48 PM on May 25, 2006
Connecticut! Home of the girlie men. Being from Connecticut, I have some words for you.... Firstly, If Connecticut is full of "girly" men, the nwhat about the teams that are killing everyone else? New London kills every team, and Xavier is one of the best in the Nation. Southington, and many other High Schools have great teams, and aren't considered by anyone as "girly". Mocking people from another state, in which you probably have no affiliation with, is sterotypical and ignorant. So, before you post anymore idiotic comments on this sports site, put some thought into what you are saying, and take into consideration that you are ruining the site for everyone else with your stupidity. *Thanks*
posted by redsoxrgay at 06:56 PM on May 25, 2006
I'm not sure it would do any good, if the coach is only suspended 1 game. Couldn't the assistant coach run up the score in the next game, then get suspended for a game, then the head coach comes back next game and runs up the score, and so on and so forth? And what about the players, are they supposed to play below their abilities? How does that help them to be better athletes? I understand the sportsmanship side of it, but it's high school, not little league.
posted by MrFrisby at 07:12 PM on May 25, 2006
How does that help them to be better athletes? One would hope that at least at the high school level, young athletes are being taught more than just win at any cost, or to keep running up the score against an obviously defenseless, outclassed team. There's no lesson or glory in beating a team by 90 points. It doesn't make anyone feel good about the game or the sport. Good coaches teach good sportsmanship.
posted by irunfromclones at 07:19 PM on May 25, 2006
It's a good rule. I'd like to know how many times a team actually beat someone by 50 points? Seems like common sense for the coaches not to run the score like that.
posted by oneunderontheday at 07:24 PM on May 25, 2006
I agree with Bishop. What if a coach takes his starters out and the backups put the lead over 50 points? The coach should not be punished because he is letting players get some playing time. If they happen to be better than their opponet, so be it.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:24 PM on May 25, 2006
I find it surprising that the State Association refused to adopt the "running clock" rule on the grounds that it would cut into back-ups playing time, but then adopt something as ridiculaous as this. If an opponent is so poor that they can be beaten by 50+ (one would hope that the coach has his reserves in the game by this time), then aren't you asking them to play below their abilities? I think it is better to have them play hard and fair for a shorter period of time, than to ask them to hold back for a longer one. Michigan has played with the running clock for many years now, and it works. One of the local (public) high schools here is such a powerhouse that they need to bring in teams from two states away (Minnesota) just so that they can schedule a full 9 game season. The smaller schools just dont want them on the schedule if they can avoid it.
posted by elovrich at 07:28 PM on May 25, 2006
Mocking people from another state, in which you probably have no affiliation with, is sterotypical and ignorant. Your name sums up your point perfectly.
posted by The SmoothMASTER at 07:34 PM on May 25, 2006
So, before you post anymore idiotic comments on this sports site, put some thought into what you are saying, and take into consideration that you are ruining the site for everyone else with your stupidity. Like you've got any room to talk, sport.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:39 PM on May 25, 2006
From the article: Some have dubbed it the "Jack Cochran rule," after the New London High football coach, who logged four wins of more than 50 points last year. In New London's 60-0 rout of Tourtelotte/Ellis Tech, Cochran enraged the Tourtelotte bench by calling a timeout just before halftime. Tourtelotte's coach was arrested on breach of peace charges after police say he struck a security guard and an assistant New London coach. It gets worse. From a summation on BadJocks.com: [Tourtelotte coach Tim] Panteleakos felt that the opposing coach, Jack Cochran was deliberately running up the school when he called timeout just before halftime with a huge lead already in the books. On the way to the locker room, Panteleakos allegedly told Cochran that if his coaching didn't change in the second half, “I'll attack the son of a (bleep) if I have to.” Then, just outside the locker room, Panteleakos allegedly grabbed and hit a member of the New London security staff, tried to hit a New London assistant coach and “came at” New London police captain William Dittman, the arresting officer. It isn't as if Tourtelotte was a competitive team. Here's the team's record in 2005: TOURTELLOTTE/ELLIS TECH Coach: Tim Panteleakos Wins: 2, Losses: 8, Ties: 0 Points For: 136 Points Against: 318 Sept. 17 Wright Tech, W 30-0 Sept. 24 at New London, L 0-60 Sept. 30 at St. Bernard/Norwich Tech, L 22-43 Oct. 7 at Fitch, L 0-55 Oct. 15 Putnam, L 0-14 Oct. 22 Plainfield, L 18-27 Oct. 29 St. Bernard/Norwich Tech, L 18-41 Nov. 4 at Putnam, W 28-8 Nov. 12 at Plainfield, L 6-35 Nov. 24 at Bacon Academy, L 14-35 Tourtelotte was shut out three times! Wright Tech and Putnam, the two teams they defeated, had a combined total of one victory between them! As a coach, what are you supposed to do when the competition is so inept, your boys are beating them just by showing up? Tell them to stop trying their best?
posted by L.N. Smithee at 07:44 PM on May 25, 2006
Connecticut! Home of the girlie men. First of all, they aren't men. They are boys (or girls). Second of all, there is nothing "manly" about beating up on an inferior team (or person). What if a coach takes his starters out and the backups put the lead over 50 points? Simple. Tell the backups when they go in to not let the score get higher than 50 points. Start playing kids out of position. Does the running back have an urge to try the quarterback position? Let him have a go at it. Is the linebacker bragging he can punt the ball a mile? Now is his chance to put up or shut up. I've been on both sides of a soccer game where the teams were obviously mismatched. In one game, we were trailing 8-0 at the half. So, we simply swapped a couple of players with the other team, had the top scorers play net and had a much more entertaining second half. The final score was listed as 10-0 and no one really gave a damn.
posted by grum@work at 07:54 PM on May 25, 2006
grum@work: Simple. Tell the backups when they go in to not let the score get higher than 50 points. Oh, that's great. Waiting on the bench for the moment when the "A" team gets a breather, finally you get to hit the field and...NOT score. Thanks, coach.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 08:00 PM on May 25, 2006
The Connecticut coach who wins by 50 or more ought to have to play Springdale (AR) High School as punishment. Then they could lose by 100 or more.
posted by bkennamer at 08:11 PM on May 25, 2006
Don't you normally tell your kids to try their best at all times? Now you want to tell your kids you don't have to try your best at all times because we'll just make the other kids stop trying their best. The great poeple in the world let alone sports players became that way because they picked themselves up from many defeats to work harder and become better at what they do. By shielding kids from a loss all they will learm is they don't have to work hard, we'll give you a medal anyway. Also, if you play kids at positions they have never played in a game you'll get them hurt.
posted by chava22 at 08:13 PM on May 25, 2006
Start playing kids out of position. Does the running back have an urge to try the quarterback position? Let him have a go at it. Is the linebacker bragging he can punt the ball a mile? Now is his chance to put up or shut up. And what happens if the running back is like Mike Vick and the linebacker is like Sebastian Janikowski? Then what? Have them switch their left and right shoes?
posted by L.N. Smithee at 08:18 PM on May 25, 2006
What a bunch of sisters! Can't be hurting peoples feelings out there in Connecticut. What a weak state.
posted by ggermanctl@sbcglobal at 08:28 PM on May 25, 2006
"Tell the backups when they go in not to let the score get over 50 points"Why not make the winning coach play the cheer leaders. I don't think the coach who wins by over 50 should be suspended, I think the coach who lost by that much should be fired. They don't want to go a non-stop clock because it would take playing time away from the backup players? but they have to make sure they don't score. Hmm, maybe they should not keep score at all, that way no one get's there feelings hurt. If Vince L was not dead shit like this would kill him.
posted by CB900 at 08:41 PM on May 25, 2006
well spoken cb
posted by skins fan at 08:48 PM on May 25, 2006
I'm not so sure they should go as far as creating a rule to punish coaches with when they win a few lopsided games. That said, there should be some system in place to punish a coach when he (or she) is obviously running up the score. If you're up 50 points and you're calling time out to get in a better play or players just before the half or the end of the game then you need to be taken on some sort of trip to the woodshed for a reminder about sportsmanship. Besides knowing when someone is intentionally running up the score is sort of like the old saying about porn, I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.
posted by commander cody at 09:16 PM on May 25, 2006
As a coach, what are you supposed to do when the competition is so inept, your boys are beating them just by showing up? You're supposed to eat the clock, run the ball, call no trick plays, and put in lots of backups. If you do all that and you still win by 50, then your assistant coaches can get some extra playing time too next week.
posted by rcade at 09:26 PM on May 25, 2006
Wow! What a stupid idea. I don't know about Connecticut, but in Michigan, it's not unusual to have rival teams fighting for the same playoff positioning which are both capable of crushing most opponents. The problem is, if you and your rival play a couple of the same teams, you can hurt your playoff seeding by going easy on them because your rival will destroy them. Our playoff seeding is determined by "power rankings" which are about as easy to calculate as the BCS system, but it's a safe bet that if you barely beat the cream puffs and your rival runs up the scores, you lose out at playoff time. Sure, you still get in, but you get tougher early round match ups and end up with more road games. Now, I know, it shouldn't matter if EVERYONE has to hold scores down, right? Wrong. If you can beat team "A" by 50 and I can beat them by 80, I probably have the edge...but there's no way to know if we hold the scores down artificially, is there? Also, grum@work, you NEVER play a kid out of position in a game situation unless there's no other option. That goes double for a whole field full of them. You make that a policy and some kids are going to get a whole lot more than their feelings hurt.
posted by ctal1999 at 09:44 PM on May 25, 2006
But, ctal1999, we're talking about high school kids here and the sports they are playing are supposed to be teaching them more then just making the playoffs. If we were talking the pros where big money is on the line I could sort of (barely) understand it, but the vast, vast, vast majority of these kids (and yes high school students are still kids) are never going to see the inside of an NFL stadium as anything other then a fan, or even a college one for that matter. It's far more important to teach them the life lessons that real sportsmanship gives then to push them to a playoff at the expense of the pride, self-respect and learning of a weaker team, just because there is a tiny, tiny chance that one of them might look slightly better to a college scout in a playoff game. At the high school level playoffs be damned.
posted by commander cody at 10:14 PM on May 25, 2006
Wow can it get any worse than any rule like this. You play with all your heart till the end of the game. If you lose, tough. Try harder next week. Everyone can't be equal, some people ( teams ) are just better. Besides I would feel really rotten knowing the other team just laid it down.
posted by BEN2700 at 10:29 PM on May 25, 2006
if u don't want the score run up on your team, stop the other team. players playing at half speed are gonna get hurt and it's not fair to the second stringers that they shouldn't be able to play and try to score. if one of the starters gets hurt in a playoff game and the scrubs have just been running out the clock in earlier games, the team is gonna be screwed. also. redsox that has to be the most offensive name i've seen on here. the webmaster on this site pulls comments that are harmless and yet you get to SIGN your comments with that offensive callsign. homophobia and anti'gay statements should not be on this site. it degrades what typically is a clever well run public opinion page.
posted by tommybiden at 10:34 PM on May 25, 2006
Some states, including Iowa, continuously run the game clock in the second half if a team has a 35-point lead. The Connecticut committee rejected a similar proposal because members thought it would unfairly cut into backups' playing time. And the backups would be playing for the winning team...right? Soooo...we wouldn't want to cut into their time, running into people instead of around them while trying not to score? If you are up by 45 in the third qtr., what are you supposed to do? Start taking a knee? That's fine as long as the other team quits too. I've seen a-hole coaches call time outs and run trick plays when the game is obviously over... at the third grade level! A quick review of film could show whether a coach was being an a-hole or not. If the coach is playing the third string, running the ball etc. and the other team is still too inept to stop them, the coach shouldn't be punished. I understand not wanting to demoralize people but I think the running clock is better. The only arguement against that is that it quite possibly hinders the team that's losing from coming back. When backups are put into blow outs, they are still expected to run the plays, still expected to execute, flea flickers...no. Off tackle left, off tackle right...yes. They need to address the divisions that these schools are in and do a better job of having equal competition.
posted by tselson at 10:48 PM on May 25, 2006
Well said CB900. I think that continuously running down the game clock would be a much better policy. Coaches shouldn't be punished because their players are simply better than the other team's players.
posted by STUNNER at 11:13 PM on May 25, 2006
By the way STUNNER, good link post. It's nice to see some nice civilized talk about the ethics of amateur sports, for the most part anyway. It's a subject close to my heart because my old baseball coach always taught two main rules, you never cheat and you never run up a score on the other team. That's sportsmanship and to me sportmanship is always the most important part of amateur sports.
posted by commander cody at 11:32 PM on May 25, 2006
I know someone already said it, but I thikk the major flaw here is not allowing running time... Sounds stupid to me. Why put in your third stringers and tell them to hold back? Running time would make it very simple.
posted by everett at 11:39 PM on May 25, 2006
Bad idea... Kids need to learn how to lose with dignity the same way the learn to win with pride. Being able to say yeah we lost but at least it wasnt by 50 doesnt take away from the fact they lost.
posted by PGHTOS at 11:59 PM on May 25, 2006
Cody, you're coming at this from a strictly emotional angle. First of all, if they were pros' the scores wouldn't matter much (except in tie breakers). If an NFL team goes undefeated in the regular season and wins each game by 1 point, they're going to get a first round bye and have home field advantage all the way through the playoffs. If USC, Texas and Ohio State all go undefeated, who plays in the national championship game? Well, let's say USC won by an average of 35 points, Texas by 22 and Ohio State by 4. OSU is probably out of luck. There are few enough teams in the pros that there's something approaching parity, and it's not too difficult to usually separate out the playoff quality teams. That's not true in college and it's even worse in high school. Since record alone won't suffice, teams pad stats when they can. You pooh pooh these games because they're only high school. I've coached several kids over the last few years who are in college now predominantly because of scholarships. These aren't dumb jocks, but they weren't offered academic scholarships either. Football opened doors that no amount of extra studying could have. Like it or not, good players on high profile teams get noticed. Great players on mediocre or poor teams often don't. Sportsmanship is a wonderful thing, but you assume that it's good sportsmanship to toy with an inferior competitor. I often compete against people when I know they have much more ability at the given pursuit than I do. It motivates me to drive myself and improve, and I feel great if I just manage to be competitive with him...unless I find out that he was holding back. THAT's when I feel embarassed and humiliated. That means I'm not even worthy of an effort on his part. Sportsmanship doesn't mean that you make sure the other team feels good about the outcome. I teach my kids that if they score a touchdown, they don't taunt. Act like you've been there before and intend to be there again, not like it's a miracle and deserves a ten minute celebration. Hand the ball to the nearest official and if you do more than a fist pump or a couple of high fives, you're rubbing it in. If a ball carrier comes near you, you drill him. He has to know that there's a price to be paid if he brings the ball into your area, but once the play is over, help him up. It's your job to stop him and make him think twice about coming back. You play hard, but you play fair. You don't dance, talk smack or taunt in any way. You simply give your best effort and let your play do the talking. You never go out with the intention of embarassing the other team. If the game gets out of hand, by all means, play your back ups as long as you're not hurting your team later in the season. It gives the back ups needed experience, and if they don't dominate the other team as badly, that's a bonus. I also think it's wise at that point to call plays that you don't do as well as you could. You get to practice where you need it, and the domination will likely stop, but your kids still have to give it their best. Having said that, if I have the second string QB hand off to the second string FB and he runs behind the second string guard and goes 80 yards for a TD, I'm happy for him. I'm sorry if your team can't field players that can slow down my second stringers, but I'm not going to tell them to stop trying just to be nice. That may sound cold, but you have to remember that life isn't always a barrel of fun. We all want to protect our kids, but we're not doing them any favors if we shelter them too much from reality. We will all likely face situations in our lives where conditions are simply ugly and there are no good options. Learning to endure those conditions and persevere is imperative to a successful life. If a drubbing on the football field is a kid's first experience with it, he's probably lucky, but it's an opportunity for him to build character. How you deal with failure and adversity is ultimately more important than how you deal with success.
posted by ctal1999 at 12:14 AM on May 26, 2006
Thanks commander cody. As you said, it really was nice to have a civilized talk over amateur sports.
posted by STUNNER at 12:21 AM on May 26, 2006
ctal... you might want to try and employ some brevity. I think you had something good to say, but that comment is longer than my thesis.
posted by everett at 12:27 AM on May 26, 2006
You're right everett! Sorry, but I had a lot to say and trimmed it as much as I could and still get my points across.
posted by ctal1999 at 12:32 AM on May 26, 2006
I don't think the coach who wins by over 50 should be suspended, I think the coach who lost by that much should be fired. If you think a high school team losing by 50 points is the coach's fault, you're nuts. You could bring together the combined coaching wisdom of Belichick, Landry and Lombardi and that losing high school team is still going to get drilled. It's simply a case where one team had access to more skilled (or larger) players than the other team. You can call all the right plays, but if you expect some 160lb pimply-faced freshman kid to stop the rush from a 210lb mustachioed-All-State senior, keep dreaming. Not every school draws from the same pool of talent. Also, grum@work, you NEVER play a kid out of position in a game situation unless there's no other option. That goes double for a whole field full of them. You make that a policy and some kids are going to get a whole lot more than their feelings hurt. I'm not talking about the punter lining up at the centre position. Obviously it's not a free-for-all for position changes, but you could definitely make some switches. If the team is this dominant, I'm sure that some of the superstar players can handle a challenge.
posted by grum@work at 12:36 AM on May 26, 2006
ctal1999 Yes I am coming at it from an emotional point of view, but it's the only one I know. For me what else is sports but emotion? I cried when Al Kaline retired. Not because I didn't think he should, but because I knew a part of my past had passed and his too. I was equally emotional, but in anger, when Barry Sanders quit football. I understood on an intellectual level why he did it, but that doesn't make me any less mad. Sports is emotion. I understand and respect your point of view, I just disagree with it. I think it's more of an opportunity to build charcter to teach a kid how not to beat up on another kid or team when you're obviously physically stronger or even better taught and coached. I think it's much more important, for both sides, to teach a kid how to deal with success gracefully then to have another kid learn how to deal with losing because it's what happened to him. It's much harder, and therefore much more important, to teach someone how to be a good winner then to be a good loser. Still, as I said, I understand where you're coming from and I hope this is an area where we can agree to disagree. I give you my hand to shake.
posted by commander cody at 12:36 AM on May 26, 2006
That rule is stupid,If they don't want to run up the scores past 50, they should have a mercy rule like little league baseball.If the lead gets to 50 or above the game is over... how simple is that! It's not the coaches fault if the opponent can't stop his team!
posted by The Tribster at 04:25 AM on May 26, 2006
I am for good sportsmanship butI don't think the coaches should be punished for having a supierior team. The forementioned mercy rule is better...
posted by The Tribster at 04:27 AM on May 26, 2006
I agree, Tribster. Instead of a 10 run rule, a 50 point rule. Game over. If you can't stop the other teams bench from scoring you haven't a chance anyway.
posted by mjkredliner at 04:33 AM on May 26, 2006
This rule is part of the pussification of America, where evrybody has to feel good and no-one get's their feelings hurt. All this rule does is say to the kids "well we can only get beat by 49 points today, so it won't be so bad.
posted by vetteman at 08:20 AM on May 26, 2006
Many good points and many bad points brought up here so far. I grew up in Connecticut and live here now. At a high school level, I believe it IS about competition. Lower levels of play are where the fundamentals and fun part of the sport should be. I am of the opinion that the everybody plays, don't keep score mentality in youth sports is giving us a generation of non-competitive people( showing out there in the real world). Don't get me wrong, there is a line that parents need to not cross. I don't want to come across as a win at all costs guy, I believe the thing that is missing in sport today is sportsmanship, for the most part. The mercy rule makes more sense to one end, for the teams fighting for playoff spots. This way you don't need to beat the team by 60 because a rival beat them by 55. Again the mercy rule doesn't help the kid who is on second string who wants to play and the game gets called. Therefore I propose you play the game out, but the largest margin of victory should be preset. I strongly agree with others who have stated they feel cheated if when one is outmatched against an opponent and they don't give full effort. A good way to improve is to play better opponents.
posted by chuck'n'duck at 08:22 AM on May 26, 2006
Stupid Rule, you can't tell a kid that gets to play only 2 or 3 times a year, ok go in but you can't play well?? How is that kid going to feel? He gets a chance to go in and show he can play, maybe show he has the talent to move up and be a starter but you tell him ohh no you can't score, take a knee you might hurt their feelings? thats BS, politically correct BS is ruining everything in this country from politics on down to sports. Get real, we were always taught that you always just give it your best and that would be good enough no matter the outcome, thats how it should be and that's what the losing coach should be teaching if they lose by 60 or if they lose by 6. The worst thing you can do is tell a kid he is not allowed to try his hardest or give his best, thats the most counter productive lesson you could ever teach anyone.
posted by T.C. at 08:31 AM on May 26, 2006
I think this is all way blown out of proportion. Really, is it so damaging to suffer a big loss? Are high school sports so intrinsic to how you view the rest of your life that such action need be taken to save face? I think the dignity everyone is talking about is non-existent. I played on the worst basketball team in the entire world when I was in grade nine. We went 0-18 and we're regularly blown out. It's hardly scarred me for life. In fact, it was almost a badge of honour. Besides, the fact that they make this a rule removes any actual sportsmanship from the equation. Sportsmanship is a choice - this is the antithesis of that. Frankly, a terrible, unsporting idea.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:34 AM on May 26, 2006
I think it boils down to the fact that you can't (and shouldn't) legislate against this kind of a$$holeness. I heard a quote this morning (and have heard it before) - when asked what the definition of pornography was, the quoter's response was "I don't know how to define it, but I'll know it when I see it". Same can be said here. Running up the score = stealing bases when up by 10 runs in the 8th inning - leaving your starters in with 1:00 left and up by 25, they steal a pass and dunk it - call a trick play late in the game that leads to a TD, against a team who is playing their own reserves because they're getting blown out. Running up the score does NOT= scoring points almost to spite yourself even after running conservative but legitimate plays. If a coach or team falls into the first category, then lambaste them in your local paper or ask that the administration have a chat with them, whatever. But, to make a blanket rule like this suspension is counter-productive to the vast majority of situations and extremely condescending to even the most hapless of teams.
posted by littleLebowski at 08:39 AM on May 26, 2006
Well said, Weedy
posted by littleLebowski at 08:41 AM on May 26, 2006
Cody, I'm looking at an autographed photo of Kaline as I write this. What a player! I agree with you on Barry, too. Walking away without warning just before the season was a terrible thing to do to his fans and the rest of the team. You might be surprised to hear that I agree with you a bit about running up the score, too. It's not that I LIKE the idea either. It's just that under the current system, it can be a necessary evil. If they come up with a playoff ranking system that won't penalize my team for not winning by overly large margins, I'm all for it. Until then, I have the responsibility to give my kids the best opportunities I can.
posted by ctal1999 at 09:06 AM on May 26, 2006
I think that everyone is over thinking this. What if Reggie Bush was told not to run as hard, or Matt Leinart was told not to pass or take a knee. Would they have had the scouts checking them in HS? I think we should let the kids be kids and play 100%. If that leads to a 50 pt blow out so be it. When a team is blown out like that it causes the other team to make decisions to work harder so it never happens again. Sports in HS are to build self esteem and to teach kids about life. If we shelter them for 4 years, who is going to shelter them for the rest of their lives? I agree, steriods in baseball is one thing to force the GOV to look into. HS sports unless kids are taking money..no reason for any form of legislation. Also, if by keeping the score below 50 and the other team makes a comeback what does that teach kids?
posted by warstda at 09:32 AM on May 26, 2006
If there are teams losing that badly shouldn't a change of schedule be in order? Obviously if a team is losing by 50 plus points they arent matched up fairly to begin with.
posted by coltsfan314 at 09:57 AM on May 26, 2006
Warstda: I agree! I have seen too many grown-a$$ men who act like children because they were sheltered while gorwing up! In real-world sports, there are no such handicaps! The reason for playing sports is competition and that means there are people competing to win! Do we all go out to work and tell ourselves, "I am going to work to half of my ability today because I am making my co-workers look bad with my hard work, effort and abilities! Yes!!! I am glad that I can give a subpar effort!" No! Our bosses, coaches, wives or whomever wants the best out of us! So tell those kids to play hard and give it their best shot! If they win by 50 or more, then the message was well received! It happens in high school basketball all the time!
posted by bkdet at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2006
If the intent is to prevent feelings from being hurt, this isn't going to do it. As the losing team, are you going to feel any better losing 60-0 than you would if you lost 50-0, but you knew the other team was NOT ALLOWED to score after they got to 50? And is the other team (of teenage boys) going to be acting very sportsmanlike as they try not to score? Or are they going to be joking around and being silly?
posted by fabulon7 at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2006
Well grum@work maybe we should take your idea one step farther. Insted of moving the players out of position, why not move em to another school. If a team wins by 50 or more on Friday nite there two best players start at the other school on Monday morning. Alos, how is it that the coach who scored 50 pts is a poor sport but the coach who had a meltdown in front of his team gets no mention here. Who is sending the wrong message here? the coach who teaches his team to play hard all the time or the coach who starts a fight because his team is getting beat?
posted by CB900 at 10:53 AM on May 26, 2006
What if Reggie Bush was told not to run as hard, or Matt Leinart was told not to pass or take a knee. Would they have had the scouts checking them in HS? How do you think the team got a 50 point lead in the first place? The stars have had a chance to perform, and that's why the score is so big. I'm pretty sure a college scout isn't going to put much stake in a performance by a player in a game where his team is already stomping the other team. Also, if by keeping the score below 50 and the other team makes a comeback what does that teach kids? That's a weak argument. How many games have you seen (outside of the movies) where a football team has fallen behind by 50 points and then somehow managed to make the score close?
posted by grum@work at 10:56 AM on May 26, 2006
Well grum@work maybe we should take your idea one step farther. Insted of moving the players out of position, why not move em to another school. If a team wins by 50 or more on Friday nite there two best players start at the other school on Monday morning. So your response to my reasonable suggestion is to stretch the concept to the point of ridiculous? Got it. Do we all go out to work and tell ourselves, "I am going to work to half of my ability today because I am making my co-workers look bad with my hard work, effort and abilities! Yes!!! I am glad that I can give a subpar effort!" Good analogy! Except, of course, for it being completely wrong. 1) You are an adult. These are kids. 2) You are getting paid for what you do. The kids are playing for fun. 3) Work is not a sport. Football is a sport.
posted by grum@work at 11:01 AM on May 26, 2006
I would rather teach my child that dogging it is never okay. How hard you should work at football or anything should be based on your ability, not on the goal. You don't do the minimum you can to get an "A", you work as hard as you can. The same goes for sports, you don't do the minimum you can to win, you play to the best of your ability. If that means one teams gets beat by more than 50, I can live with the result. I can't live with the message that the end result is the only thing that matters.
posted by bperk at 11:02 AM on May 26, 2006
grum, I typically respect your well-thought arguments - but it honestly seems like on this one, you are so jaded to one side that you are blindly dismissing potentially legit counters. So your response to my reasonable suggestion is to stretch the concept to the point of ridiculous? Got it. I'd argue that your suggestion was hardly "reasonable". I don't think the "spirit of the rule" would be met by patronizing the losing team ("great, rather than let us even TRY to compete, they're putting their flippin' center at wide receiver ... Thanks!") and putting the winning team's players in potential harm's way (especially in football ... OK, put the RB at QB and convert the LB to OL ... then, when a frustrated DL from the losing team gets a burr up his ass and schools the LB who doesn't know how to block, the RB gets crushed). And, while the work analogy might be a little stretch, there is something to be said for the underlying meaning I think bkdet was getting at ... it's still a piss-poor and anti-productive message to send to kids on both teams.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:28 AM on May 26, 2006
No grum you don't got it. What I did was stretch your ridiculous concept to the point of an unreasonable suggestion. What have we come to when it has become so important to make sure everyone feels good about them self that we punish those who excel at what they are doing. This is just more P.C. bullshit. We are talking about high school students who are closer to being adults that must face the real world and not Pop Warner third graders who are just learning the game.
posted by CB900 at 11:49 AM on May 26, 2006
I don't think the "spirit of the rule" would be met by patronizing the losing team So, by putting some players in different positions it is considered patronizing ("great, rather than let us even TRY to compete, they're putting their flippin' center at wide receiver"), but by putting in the 2nd and 3rd string players is not considered patronizing? ("Oh good! Here comes Poindexter, the waterboy/3rd-string QB and Carlos, the 3rd-string running back!") In both cases, you are deliberately reducing the competition in order to avoid running up the score even more. Why is one acceptable and the other isn't. To be fair, my suggestion for changing positions was only made as a response to "what if the backups keep running up the score?", not as an initial plan to avoid a blowout. What I did was stretch your ridiculous concept to the point of an unreasonable suggestion. Players playing in different positions during a blowout isn't a "ridiculous" concept. It happens in high school sports all the time. In a baseball game, often the LOSING team will save their pitchers in a blowout and let some bench-warmer throw a couple of innings. In soccer, if the score is out of control, the coach will put a forward in net and let the goalie play out as a change of pace. This is just more P.C. bullshit. Ah, the famous call of the conservative.
posted by grum@work at 12:19 PM on May 26, 2006
I am a coach in Pennsylvania and have been on both sides of thoses 50 point games. Sometimes coaches do it on purpose and sometimes there is nothing you can do about it. Sometimes a team is just that bad. If you "play kids out of position as suggested earlier all you do is ask for injury. If you have your third team in and run a fullback dive 15 times in a row and some freshman who is just happy to be in breaks on what can you do. If a DB picks on off and runs it back what can you do. As a coach, you know when it is intentional and that is Bullshit but it all comes back around. Maybe that is why conn is such a poorly recruited state by colleges.
posted by Debo270 at 12:24 PM on May 26, 2006
and grum, this isnt baseball
posted by Debo270 at 12:51 PM on May 26, 2006
If one high school team is so much better than another that their second- and third-stringers would rack up a 50-point win, they shouldn't be playing each other. Assuming that Connecticut has a classification system, the onus falls on them to correct this also.
posted by rcade at 12:51 PM on May 26, 2006
classifications, for most states, go by the number of boys in the senior class
posted by Debo270 at 12:55 PM on May 26, 2006
Like Weedy, I also played on a team (hockey) that was always getting stomped. But we didn't need any kind of legislation to tell us how to have fun. The players, from all the teams in the league, decided ourselves we would call the game officialy over once the other team got 10 pts ahead of us. And like grum's team, we would swap some players and finish playing the time out. It was fun and everybody still got to play and play hard.
posted by MrFrisby at 12:59 PM on May 26, 2006
How are the kids on the losing team going to feel when they trail by 49 points and the other team keeps breaking runs but stops at the one-yard line every time and gives them the ball? Of course, I can see some situations where a team might intentionally try to beat the other team by more than 50 just to get back at their coach! Maybe the team that's way up should start trying to score for the other team or let the other team score, so that they can keep the scoring spread down to within the 50-point limit. Bad rules lead to bad results.
posted by graymatters at 01:01 PM on May 26, 2006
amen graymatters
posted by Debo270 at 01:02 PM on May 26, 2006
RCADE- There is a classification system in CT. I started to talk about this in an earlier comment, but it got too wordy. The CIAC is always changing the classification and it makes it difficult to schedule. There also exist traditional matchups and matchups dictated by conferences. The state is small enough that these mismatches don't have to take place. They have tried many changes to make better matchups but it isn't working.
posted by chuck'n'duck at 01:05 PM on May 26, 2006
I just thought of a great situation. Say the worst team in the district, the one always getting stomped, is allowed to score repeatedly by the other team in order to keep within the 50-point spread. The starting running back on that team might have a multitude of 90-yard touchdown runs because the other teams do not try to stop him. He leads the state in rushing and gets a college scholarship from someone who only paid attention to the stats.
posted by graymatters at 01:05 PM on May 26, 2006
rcade- I just wanted to clarify that I agree with you. The onus is on the CIAC. On a second read I thought it may have sounded like I disagreed.
posted by chuck'n'duck at 01:08 PM on May 26, 2006
what are we gonna do. institute the "no child left behind rules" to highschool sports too??
posted by Debo270 at 01:09 PM on May 26, 2006
And like grum's team, we would swap some players and finish playing the time out. It was fun and everybody still got to play and play hard. There's no room for fun in scholastic athletics. You missed a chance to learn how to humiliate an opponent. I shudder to think what kind of adult you've become after you were exposed to a namby-pamby concept like sportsmanship. I'll bet you're the kind of person who coddles the laggardly and holds doors open for people.
posted by rcade at 01:21 PM on May 26, 2006
A few surprises in what hasn't been proposed on this thread, though I began skimming two-thirds through it... 1) I wonder if CT thought of discontinuing the scoring once it got to the 50-point level. 2) My major issue with the 50-point limit is that 75 points seems to be a better threshold. 3) One solution might be to allow coaches to suit up as many athletes as possible if a blowout seems to be brewing, even if that means bringing in middle school kids that feed into the high school.
posted by jackhererra at 01:26 PM on May 26, 2006
The Federal government has announced that all high school football teams > must meet "No Child Left Behind" legislation beginning next season. > > A. No team will be declared a winner, as that will leave 50% of > participants behind. > > B. All high schools will be divided into districts with eight teams > per district. Every team must finish in at > least 3rd place to be proficient. > > C. All teams must score at least 21 points, but no defense can allow > more than 7 points. > > D. No tournaments will be held, as this would result in one champion. > > E. All teams must make the state playoffs, and all will win the > championship. > > F. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation > until they are the champions, and coaches will be held > accountable! > > G. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the > same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions for > interest in football, desire in athletics, genetic abilities > or disabilities... > > H. All kids WILL play football at a PROFICIENT level. > > I. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own, without > instruction, because the coaches will be using all of their > instructional time with the athletes that are not > interested in football, have limited athletic ability, and > whose parents do not like football. > > J. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept > in 4th, 8th and 11th grades. This will create a New Age of > sports, where every school is expected to have the same > level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimal > goals. > > K. If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind. > >>
posted by Debo270 at 01:55 PM on May 26, 2006
Debo270: That's an exact antithesis to competition as this rule or regulation suggests! I don't think that on any level of competition that no one wants to be given "sympathy" plays or points or wins for that matter! We compete to win and the better we are than our competitors, the more they will work hard to make competitions thrive! How long did it take you to come up with that...brilliant!
posted by bkdet at 02:10 PM on May 26, 2006
I am sure several of you have seen the animated movie The Incredibles. Well in it, the parents tell Dash (lightning fast speed) that he cannot compete! He tells his mom that she always tells him to be his best but that she does not really mean it cause he would pummel the competition!
posted by bkdet at 02:14 PM on May 26, 2006
What this boils down to is that some of you believe that the most important thing is that none of the kids end up embarassed or get their egos bruised. Others believe that the object is to win at all costs. It seems to me that the most reasonable view is that you do your best to win without cheating or intentionally hurting players on the other team, physically or emotionally. Still, people get hurt in football. As long as it's not intentional, we have to accept that it's a rough game. Do your best and let the chips fall where they may. If you win or lose by 50+, so be it. You gave it your best effort. If the most important thing is making sure none of the kids get a shock to their self esteem, what's the point of keeping score? Let that wait until college. We'll just schedule scrimmages from now on and scouts can drop by to see if any of the players catch their attention. Let's be realistic here. Football is a rough and tumble competition...as is life. High scool is not too early for exposure to that sometimes unpleasant realization. We call them kids, but these are 17 and 18 year olds. They're legally adults, or on the cusp, and if we expect them to be able to deal with work and politics and love and war, then we'd better darned well hope that they can cope with a spanking on the football field. If not, we're all in trouble.
posted by ctal1999 at 03:23 PM on May 26, 2006
That rule is ludacris, high school athletes are judge by their stats and contributions in a game....how is an all american half back going to show case his talents if he has to be pulled in the first half just because his team is up by thirty points...If you have a dynamic defense and noone can score on you you'll have those offense of players who will never be able to shine...
posted by agarcia3rd at 03:50 PM on May 26, 2006
Being from SE Conn and an Asst. HS FB coach - I am against the whole cap rule stuff - but I can see from the mis-informed that more people need to know what is going on out here. The coach in question has a HISTORY of doing this kind of stuff. I will not take away from him that he is a great coach and gets his kids to perform - however, when he makes a name on running up the score (three different programs in the last decade) and in one of those blowouts this year - he decided to pull his All-State Wide Receiver (who "happened" to move to his new school on the other side of the state this year when he began). Oh, by the way, he was pulled from the game - with 3 minutes left!!! That's the stuff that needs to be curbed!
posted by jcubs007 at 04:15 PM on May 26, 2006
This is an example of the mentality of football coaches and backup players. This game was over. The losing team scores with under a minute left and then does an onside kick. The losing teams backup qb, then leads another scoring drive. The winning defensive coordinator gets pissed that his team let up. They just can't stop playing, because even after the score on the score board is meaningless, their egos are still on the field.
posted by tselson at 04:50 PM on May 26, 2006
How is an all american halfback going to show case his talents? My god man, we can't show case one players talent over a less talented player. He might hurt some ones feelings. I think the new rule should be that the fastest player will not be allowed to run faster than the slowest player on the feild. And grum I am not a conservative, I just don't think playing full contact football in lace panties is a good idea. Telling one team to stop playing there best so thay don't hurt the other teams feelings is bullshit. P.C. or not.
posted by CB900 at 05:04 PM on May 26, 2006
One of the stupidest comments I've yet seen on this website came in this thread; allow me to paraphrase, since the poster in question has little or no ability to write at a third grade level: Who cares about hurting the kids' feelings? and then: Think about the poor second and third string kids who never get to score a touchdown...now you're going to hurt their feelings by not letting them score? So, their feelings don't count for shit, but ours are of paramount importance. I'll just bet you're a real charmer.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:18 PM on May 26, 2006
ctal199 said it all so well. Sometimes lopsided games happen and there is nothing can be done. But when coaches intentionally run up the score that is another matter. Those ooaches should be suspended. Players must learn to deal with disappointment at all levels. This is not just about sports but also life lessons. I coached swimming for over 10 years and one of the things I always stressed to my swimmers was to give their best each and every time. If they got beat it was OK as long as they know they tried their best. Because sometimes your best is just not enough. Too many psycologists etc are worried about making those less gifted, smart or whatever feel like they are equal to those that are smarter, more talented, etc. It is a fact of life that some people are better at some things than others. The earlier we learn to deal with that the better adjusted we are for adult life.
posted by patrickm at 05:41 PM on May 26, 2006
I think it's a clear sign of the decline of western civilization when people can say that exhibiting good sportsmanship is bullshit. There is no proof that being competetive and a good sportsman are mutually exclusive. It's easy for people like CB900 who have never actually played a sport to sit in the stands and cheer their team on with the same blood lust enthusiasm the Romans had for the lions vs the Christians. Your side won but it wasn't much of a contest, was it? A good coach would soon realize the other team was way over-matched and start substituting players long before it got to the point limit.
posted by irunfromclones at 06:07 PM on May 26, 2006
If victory in a game is assured at halftime, isn't it better to bench your starters anyway? They could get hurt playing in junk time and your backups need game experience. The kind of teams that rack up 50-point wins are generally the ones that are headed to the playoffs. Since football's a manly sport, as we've heard from manly man after manly man in this discussion, manly injuries are common and you might end up needing an infusion of fresh backup manliness later in the year.
posted by rcade at 06:53 PM on May 26, 2006
rcade, You just made my point for me. I talked about playoff structure in an earlier post. It's common for two elite teams from a given area to be expected to meet in the state championship before the season even starts. Barring anything unexpected, they both go undefeated through the regular season. However, team "A" won big every game. Team "B" coasted through the second half of most games to avoid upsetting the other teams. When the playoffs roll around, team "A" gets an easier path (easier early round games, more home games, etc.) because of their better performance throughout the season. They both make it to the championship game, but team "B" is a lot more beat up because of a much tougher playoff run. The kids on team "B" lose after a season full of blood, sweat and tears. They endured months of misery to reach their goal, only to have it denied to them and it's not because they weren't good enough. It's because their coach worried more about the kids on the other teams than the ones on his own. That's irresponsible, plain and simple. It's a coaches duty to give his players the best opportunities that he can. It's entirely appropriate to give his back ups game experience and to run plays that the team isn't as proficient at as they could be WHEN HE CAN AFFORD TO. It allows him to improve his team and lessen the blow to the other team, but it has to be up to him to decide when it's appropriate. As long as the playoff seedings are affected by how dominant a team is in its wins and not just the win/loss record, coaches will need to run up scores sometimes simply to keep pace with their rivals. To do anything else is to intentionally put your team at a disadvantage later. If they don't like having coaches run up scores, they need to change their playoff ranking system to remove the necessity for it. Until then, a coach has got to do what a coach has got to do.
posted by ctal1999 at 07:58 PM on May 26, 2006
Jcubs007 spoke from the lion's den on this issue. And perhaps it is just the wording of the rule that needs to be tweaked. Rather than stating that ANY coach of ANY team that wins by 50+ points will be suspended the next game, why not make it: "The coach of any team that wins a game by 50+ points will be subject to having his game films reviewed for the possibility of actions that are commonly referred to as 'running up the score'. These actions would include, but are not limited to, failure to play available reserves for X % of plays that the score so indicates; running of so called'trick' or 'gimmick' plays; taking timeouts for any reason other than an inury, unless X percent of the players on the field are reserves." You get the idea, it goes back to, "I can't define it, but I know it when i see it." If the point is to stop the unsportsmalike conduct of a few bad apples, this may be the way to go. If the point is to shield and coddle our nearly adult athletes, treating them as preteens, keeping them from having to deal with disappointment and failure of any kind, until the day they are out on their own, then they have the right formula already and do not need to change a thing.
posted by elovrich at 08:45 PM on May 26, 2006
The kids on team "B" lose after a season full of blood, sweat and tears. They endured months of misery to reach their goal, only to have it denied to them and it's not because they weren't good enough. It's because their coach worried more about the kids on the other teams than the ones on his own. That's irresponsible, plain and simple. That's an incredible hypothetical, ctal1999. Team A and Team B are in the same state and would play by the same sportsmanship rules. How does one of them get a really rough playoff bracket because they weren't able to humiliate their opponents?
posted by rcade at 09:48 PM on May 26, 2006
rcade, I went over that in an earlier post. If you set an arbitrary maximum margin, you eliminate the problem of running up the score, and create two new ones. First, you end up in situations where the second and third stringers are still scoring and the coach would have to tell them to quit trying or face suspension. I can tell you that this very situation would have happened to our local team several times in the last couple of years if we didn't use the running clock solution. Second, in a max margin system, team "A" and team "B" end up undefeated with a string of "mercy" games. Since they didn't get to perform to their full potential, how are the officials that set up the playoff seedings to compare the two? If "A" could have won each game by 50-55 and "B" could have won by 75 or more, "B" clearly has the edge. Huge victory margins may be ugly, but they are almost always a good indicator of the true strength of a team. Remember, this isn't like college where you can have USC crush Central Michigan and nobody else in the PAC 10 even plays them. The high school teams generally play other area teams, so even if two playoff bound teams haven't played each other, they have common opponents for the purposes of comparison. Eliminate accurate scores in these games and the picture becomes very cloudy. Find me alternative criteria that will be as accurate and I'll gladly get on board. Running up the score for the purpose of embarassing the other team is inexcusable, but doing it to prove how truly proficient your players have managed to become is necessary under most playoff systems.
posted by ctal1999 at 09:41 AM on May 27, 2006
Since they didn't get to perform to their full potential, how are the officials that set up the playoff seedings to compare the two? Playoff seedings based on margins of victory are bogus. They were a joke in the NCAA when Jack Pardee was running up obscene scores in Houston to put that program on the map, and they ought to be dumped from all sports.
posted by rcade at 10:29 AM on May 27, 2006
rcade, Your argument is getting weaker. I already conceded that huge margins of victory mean next to nothing in college. That's not true in high school where similar sized schools share many opponents from a small geographical area. College programs schedule conference matchups and the rest of the schedule is usually filled with David vs. Goliath where the big school gets a walkover and the small one gets exposure and a bigger payday than usual. Admittedly, lopsided scores mean almost nothing in these games, but comparing this to the high school level is apples and oranges. Maybe I can explain my argument this way. The #5 heavyweight contender would destroy the average Golden Glover, just as the World Champion would. That doesn't mean that there's not a HUGE disparity between #5 and #1. The only way to be sure is to have them fight, but the sanctioning bodies have to use a comparison of careers prior to that. They look at how the various competitors have performed against one another to set up the rankings, right? It's the responsibility of each manager to schedule fights that put his guy in the best possible light by setting fights that are considered to be enough of a challenge while his fighter can get the win and look good doing it. He also has to make sure that his guy gets enough rest and avoids injury. High school football coaches have to deal with a similar ranking system and many of the same responsibilities, but they can't set their schedule or postpone contests due to injury. Because of the ranking system, it's even more important that the team is dominant when the opportunity presents itself. It's not poor sportsmanship, it's necessity to avoid putting the team at a disadvantage later on. Saying nobody can win by more than a given number of points doesn't solve the problem. That's like saying that we don't want the kids who don't study hard or just aren't as academically oriented to feel bad, so we're not going to let anyone get more than a B unless the rest of the class has gotten at least a C+. We'd end up with a whole lot of B students and have no realistic way to determine which ones are most deserving of college admissions and scholarships. Who are the legit B students and who would actually have been the valedictorian? I guess we could just depend on their SAT scores... but the kids with the highest scores would humiliate those who didn't do as well, and we can't have that! Hmmm, what to do, what to do. We could look at their transcripts all we wanted and all we'd see is that a bunch of kids performed absolutely as well as they were allowed to and no better. That may build self esteem, but self esteem without accomplishment as a basis is worthless. What's worse, it detracts from those who are truly driven to do their best and undermines the motivation to excel.
posted by ctal1999 at 01:35 PM on May 27, 2006
In this day and age of televised HS football games as well as having asst. coaches scouting future opponits it seems to me that there is plenty of film/information on an upcomming game that a coach has ample insite to whom his team is playing. If your up 21-0 in the first quarter as an example and you know your opponant is a sub-par team a good coach should be able to coordinate subs accordingly. And useing the ranking system as an excuse to run up scores is just that...an excuse. And as my grandmother used to tell me growing up, "well I guess a poor excuse is better than no excuse at all." Just my opinion, take it or leave it.
posted by Folkways at 03:24 PM on May 27, 2006
That's like saying that we don't want the kids who don't study hard or just aren't as academically oriented to feel bad, so we're not going to let anyone get more than a B unless the rest of the class has gotten at least a C+. Touchdown Jesus! That may be the worst analogy yet. Two questions: What character is being built in a 60-0 victory that isn't being built in a 40-0 victory? Do you consider it bad sportsmanship for a team up by 40 points to run an onside kick in the fourth quarter?
posted by rcade at 05:02 PM on May 27, 2006
rcade, I can tell that you're not that dense, so I assume that you're intentionally missing the point. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's ugly when a team runs up the score. Unfortunately, it's a necessity in some cases. With the scores you listed above, if my team is the 60-0 winner over Hopeless High and yours is the 40-0 winner, I just got the leg up in the playoffs. If your team COULDN'T have scored 60, the playoff officials have an accurate reflection. If your team COULD have and you chose not to, you've just hurt your own team because they don't look as good as they truly are. If it happens several times in the season (which is common with very good teams), you compound the problem. We can agree that blowouts are bad. Intentionally handicapping your own team in order to protect the feelings of the other guys is worse. A max margin system isn't the solution. If you and I both beat Hopeless 50-0, do they feel any better, especially knowing that that's the WORST beating we could have possibly saddled them with? On top of that, you just made the playoff picture even cloudier than normal. A running clock is a better solution, though it's still not perfect. With the running clock, scores are held down by lack of time rather than lack of effort. If you and I both beat hopeless with a running clock, the scores won't be as lopsided, but they'll still give a better idea of your teams' abilities compared to mine. I don't like to see kids humiliated. To do it just for fun is downright evil. To do it when not doing it would harm your own team is necessity. Every coach knows how his closest rivals have fared as the season has progressed. If he can afford to let up, he should. Put in the second and third stringers for experience. Call plays they haven't mastered so they get the extra work and the opponents have a better shot at getting the stop...but if you and I are fighting for the best playoff position and I know you beat these guys by 52 last week, I'd better beat them by just as much or a little more. On the other hand, if my playoff position is already a lock, blowouts are all about ego and are inexcusable. Be charitable when you can afford to, but don't harm your own along the way. The running clock eliminates the blowout situation more often than not. If that's not enough, I'll sign on to reasonable suggestions that limit blowouts even more as long as they don't make playoff seedings even more of mess. I know it's only a game and it's only high school, but a surprising number of B and C students end up with college educations because of football (the limited value of the education jocks get from some colleges is a whole different scandal, but it doesn't excuse limiting the opportunity). As a coach, if you do anything to limit the visibility of your players simply to benefit other teams, you're in the wrong. That's exactly what you're doing if you imperil their playoff run. The buzz about good players starts during the season, but the colleges really pay attention to the playoffs. Do kids from less successful teams get scholarships? Sure. Is it more likely if their team made a long playoff run or even won the title? Of course, and it's a coaches responsibility to give them as much opportunity as he can.
posted by ctal1999 at 09:55 AM on May 28, 2006
And yet another example of the "everyones a winner" mentality infecting sports and rewarding mediocrity...