January 23, 2009

The 100-0 score suggests the winning team was aiming for that milestone instead of running out the clock.

Another solution would be to split the teams and play the remainder of the game as a more evenly matched scrimmage.

There's something admirable about the losing team playing out the game to the end, though. Wonder if they were still taking shots and playing defense.

posted by rcade at 07:48 AM on January 23, 2009

Recently a girls' ice hockey game between Souhegan of Amherst, NH, and Bishop Guertin of Nashua, NH, was forfeited by Souhegan because its only goaltender was injured. Girls' ice hockey is in its fledgling stages in NH, so the coaches really wanted to play for the sake of the competition. Souhegan offered the forfeit, which was accepted by the Bishop Guertin coach, but rather than just put away the skates and go home, Bishop Guertin loaned Souhegan their backup goaltender, and off they went. Bishop Guertin could easily have insisted that the game be played just to pad their scoring statistics, but what would that have accomplished? Even though the game was a loss for Souhegan, it was important to both teams that they play on somewhat even terms, just to find out how they would fare. Souhegan lost, but it was no blowout, and you could say that both teams were the winners.

My point is that if a game is out of control, the coaches need to recognize what's going on and find a way to ease off a bit. Further, there needs to be some sort of mercy rule to mitigate the size of a loss. Perhaps they could go to running time (clock does not stop on free throws or other stoppages, other than time outs). This is done in NH high school football when one team leads another by 35 or more in the 2nd half. I don't agree that having your players stand around and deliberately allow the other team to score while wasting your own offensive chances is a good solution. It is patronizing and obvious, and I'm sure the losing team would not be pleased.

posted by Howard_T at 01:21 PM on January 23, 2009

The learning disabled angle reminded me of the football game in which a team allowed a mentally handicapped player to score, knowing how much it would mean to that player.

From what I've read these are kids that have ADD (which means my kid can't keep his shit together to pay attention in class so he/she has "ADD"), dyslexia, and the like. It's not like they are special needs kids that have autism and things like that. 100-0, sure that's over the top but the ass whipping was because the losing team was inferior. Don't get me wrong, the winning coach should called off the dogs but I hope this doesn't turn into the winners beat up on the handicap kids.

posted by cheemo13 at 06:22 PM on January 23, 2009

Yeah, but isn't there a happy medium somewhere? At some point, you realize what's going on and simply slow it down. Play so that you're not insulting them, but limit shots, increase passes, and work on certain things for future games.

posted by tahoemoj at 07:23 PM on January 23, 2009

who makes the schedules???? i dont know if the winning team was handicapped in any way but who would make a game pairing unhandicapped vs handicapped that is just crazy.

posted by jjmule16 at 09:36 PM on January 23, 2009

Thanks for reading the above posts, jjmule16, glad to know that you are paying attention.

posted by BoKnows at 09:39 PM on January 23, 2009

Joaquim's link to the followup story is worth a read. Running a full-court press on a team you're beating 88-0 in the fourth period is inexcusable.

But in the end the bad sports got what was coming to them. The coach and players of Covenant School have turned themselves into a national embarrassment with their lack of sportsmanship. Considering the religious focus of the school -- its web site states the school's mission is to "glorify God by equipping students with the tools necessary to pursue a lifetime of learning so that they may discern, reason, and defend truth in service to our Lord" -- I would be surprised if this doesn't cost that coach his job.

People who blame the losing team for sucking must never have been on a team in their life that was completely outmatched by its opponent.

posted by rcade at 08:50 AM on January 24, 2009

Inside the arena you're supposed to give 100% effort. Telling kids otherwise is bad advice for life, and (especially in contact sports) will increase the chances of someone getting hurt.

Once someone goes up 50 points I don't think the outcome of the game is in doubt any longer. Institute a mercy rule and keep the kids playing as hard as they can.

posted by chmurray at 10:24 AM on January 24, 2009

In basketball, though, what the hell are you supposed to do?

You can do any number of things to avoid beating a team so badly it makes national news. Stop the full-court press, tell the guards to run the shot clock down before passing inside or driving the paint, encourage the team to take twos instead of threes and put your worst dribblers at guard to give them the practice.

posted by rcade at 12:46 PM on January 24, 2009

I, too, have a similar story. My high school hockey team (the Crusaders - nice name for a catholic school, huh?) was playing a team in the first round of the state playoffs who had no business being on the ice with us. After scoring three quick goals in the opening few minutes, our coach recognized the disparity in talent. From then on, (1) only seniors were allowed to shoot the puck (2) and only after four passes in the offensive zone. We worked on some plays to get ready for our next opponent, making use of the ice time with another team out there to scrimmage against. Most importantly, we played hard the entire game (until the mercy rule kicked in midway through the third.) Guys skated hard, tried to make crisp passes, and played tough defense. We just limited the amount of scoring. I don't think that other team could accuse us of humiliating them by running up the score or not respecting them by not playing hard. That's the happy medium I was talking about. This coach could have made use of the time by running some plays without pressing and shooting threes.

posted by tahoemoj at 01:39 PM on January 24, 2009

Several points.
First, Dallas Academy has pulled their team from the league they were in, and they are looking for a less competitive league to play in. They may look at playing other school's JV teams.
Second, there are many ways to keep the score down, and/or closer.
Call off the full court press.
Run the shot clock down.
Play very soft defense...no attempts to steal the ball, no fouling, no screens, etc.
Have every player move to a position that they don't normally play.

I do not put a single ounce of blame on the Dallas Academy coach. To forfeit or pull his team during the game only teaches his players that it's okay to quit.

FYI, the losing team has been on several national talk shows, and they seem to be having a good time with their 15 minutes of fame.

posted by dviking at 04:18 PM on January 24, 2009

wfrazerjr, I disagree with you reasoning.

Practicing how to run the shot clock all the way down to 1 before shooting is indeed a skill teams need to practice.
Having each player play a position they don't normally play does indeed improve your team. Especially when you only have 6 players on your team.

To say that you're going to practice the press is fine, but somewhere along about 55-0 it should become obvious that maybe you can work on something else.

"Sorry, it's not my fault you suck" is hardly in keeping with the stated mission statement of the winning school. I doubt it's in line with the mission statement of any high school.

posted by dviking at 07:08 PM on January 24, 2009

So, for every example I saw given here -- do nothing to improve your own team. If you need work on threes, tough. If you need to work on the press, tough.

Do you need to work on every skill in every game? How much "work" are you going to accomplish against a seriously overmatched opponent?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:43 PM on January 24, 2009

I'm not trying to gloss it over, Frazer, but I think your point exists in a theoretical space where 100-0 games can be the result of polishing up your skills, as opposed to a methodical attempt to hang a gaudy number on the scoreboard.

I attended a game like this at the Astrodome, back in 1990 when David Klingler was quarterback of the Houston Cougars and broke all kinds of records. He threw 11 touchdown passes against Division I-AA Eastern Washington in an 84-21 rout.

The lack of sportsmanship was so brazen, even by the looser standards of run-it-up college football, that it probably cost Klingler the Heisman, according to SI. Today, that's how Klingler is best remembered -- as a QB who ran up the score on patsies, not as one of the greatest arms in college football history.

posted by rcade at 09:16 PM on January 24, 2009

And I'm saying the 100-0 score (or some similar score) is a byproduct of the game you're playing. It's pretty obvious the example you cited was nothing but Klinger taking advantage of a weak opponent to pad his statistics and further his chances for the Heisman.

Or so he thought.

In the case of Covenant (and this point I'll bring in lbb's argument), they don't have such a luxury. They have six players on their roster, which means they can never practice the press properly outside of a game. They're also nearing the end of their regular-season schedule. Maybe they'll get a chance to practice against another lesser opponent; maybe they won't. The coach, however, can't know that sitting on the sidelines of a 50-0 game and heading in the postseason. Therefore, it's practice time.

Again, I'm not arguing the validity of quitting at exactly 100 points. That's pretty lousy, but I don't think it's the real issue here. I see the issue as some people saying it's more important to protect the players on the opposing team from their own ineptness as opposed to doing what's right for your own team.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:09 AM on January 25, 2009

Wfrazer, the point you seem to be making is that the Covenant coach needed to practice the full court press.

Yet in your own experience, the team that annihilated your team was playing with a malicious intent. In your own words:

The point of JV football is to give players who aren't playing much at the varsity level a chance to see time on the field and develop for the following season. Althoff, however, chose to bring all its junior starters from the varsity level.

You know why I remember that game? Okay, one reason is one of the Crusader (nice name for a Catholic school, huh?) linebackers bit me on the hand in a pile after his helmet came off. Up by at least 40 points at the time and he bites me.

I suspect that the Covenant School coach was just as malicious as the linebacker (and the coach ) in yours, with a complete disregard for sportsmanship or the other team.

I see the issue as some people saying it's more important to protect the players on the opposing team from their own ineptness as opposed to doing what's right for your own team.

Isn't teaching your kids to win with dignity and class and some respect for the opponents better than a little extra practice on your press defense? Besides, I'm not buying that this was about a coach who just wanted to get his team some extra practice.

I'd bet the attitude was more like "Let's hang a hundred on the retards."

I don't know enough about the other school to speak to their specific learning disabilities, but wouldn't the wiser choice always be, not to humiliate any kids, especially ones with some sort of disability.

Wouldn't 60-4 or 75 - 8 been a convincing enough win?

posted by cjets at 04:13 PM on January 25, 2009

dviking, if you'll check out Covenant's own web site again (as I did before I started posting), you'll see two listings: Girls, Varsity, and Girls, Junior High. They have no junior varsity, and if they did, the JV has its own games to prepare for. You might scrimmage against them on a rare occasion -- not every day.

As for using the men's team's bench, I believe that generally happens with players from the college's men's practice squad at places like Duke, where they have a plethora of guys sitting around hoping for a shot as a walk-on or even just to bask in the glory of being associated with Duke's team. Again, the men's team has its own practice to deal with.

Cjets, I said a guy bit me. I didn't fault the entire team for it, or for playing hard the whole way. I said I learned from their not letting up much.

Is dignity and sportsmanship treating your opponents like sucks? Is it about deliberately screwing up and not playing your best? My sportsmanship doesn't look like that -- yours does. Fine.

Finally, I'm especially glad you were there to see exactly what went down. Here's a quote from an email from Grimes, which is quoted in the story I linked below:

In Sunday's email, which didn't appear to be copied to school officials, Grimes said his team stopped applying full-court defensive pressure after the score reached 25-0 three minutes into the game, dropped into a relatively benign zone defense and began resting his starters in favor of his three bench players.
Dallas Academy coach Andrew Lott agreed Covenant stopped pressing but returned with an alternate press later in the game. "I am 100 percent sure," said Lott, who estimated his team was able to get off "seven shots" all game.

So I goofed -- apparently Covenant has eight players, not six, as had been reported before. But even the opposing coach says they let up, and then used a different defense later. Hmmm ... maybe they were practicing that defense for use in a later and more competitive game?

And your use of the word "retards" is disturbing at best. We don't know what Covenant thought of the kids from Dallas Academy, but you're willing to think they would think that. Pretty fucking sad.

Just so you know -- the Covenant coach has now been fired. Maybe if he's the guy that schedule Dallas Academy, he deserves it. If not, maybe that person should get the ax.

posted by wfrazerjr at 07:52 PM on January 25, 2009

Cjets, I said a guy bit me. I didn't fault the entire team for it, or for playing hard the whole way. I said I learned from their not letting up much.

You said that the Crusader team started their Junior starters against your (overmatched) JV squad, that they ran up the score and went for it on 4th down more than once late in the game.

Even an NFL team would punt the ball in that situation. And these are high school kids. It's good that you were able to take a positive out of your situation. That doesn't mean that the Crusader coach was right, or acted in a sportsmanlike manner. And as far as the linebacker's actions, I've always believed that the fish stinks from the head.

Is dignity and sportsmanship treating your opponents like sucks? Is it about deliberately screwing up and not playing your best? My sportsmanship doesn't look like that -- yours does. Fine.

I think there's a huge grey area between treating your opponents like "sucks" and deliberately trying to humiliate them. From the article Joaquim posted:

Against Covenant, Dallas Academy was surprised to see an obviously superior team keep the pressure on until it scored its 100th point in the fourth quarter. "I'm sure they could have won by 30 points and still had just as good a time," Civello said.....

"They are really good," Civello said. "Their point guard is terrific. This is what it came down to in the second half: steal at half court and layup. Steal and layup. Steal and layup. It was a layup drill. They finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left." Covenant's point guard had 48 points.

As noted by several different posters above, there are many different ways for the team to practice their skills during the game that would not have involved this humiliation.

And your use of the word "retards" is disturbing at best. We don't know what Covenant thought of the kids from Dallas Academy, but you're willing to think they would think that. Pretty fucking sad.

It's meant to be disturbing. Clearly, I have no idea what the Covenant coach said. But running up the score on a group of learning disabled kids so egregiously is disturbing as well. And after his actions, I'm certainly not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

posted by cjets at 10:42 PM on January 25, 2009

I can hardly believe they fired the coach. What a joke. If you go to the coach's website he notes that four years ago they lost a game by 76 points...

posted by chmurray at 10:40 AM on January 26, 2009

Yea, I second that rcade.

posted by BornIcon at 02:04 PM on January 26, 2009

If you haven't tired of the subject, it's now a topic on metafilter. One mefite does an excellent job of explaining how his high school coach handled a similar situation and how the situation should have been handled (pasted below as well): Well, now that the binary view has been fully aired, here's a more nuanced way to frame this . . . When I was in junior high, I was on our boys' basketball team and we were the league powerhouse. We had a centre who'd not only shot up a good six inches past the next tallest kid in the league, but he'd been going to the gym daily to shoot hoops, plus this was a Canadian military base in northern Alberta that hosted a huge multiweek military exercise every year, and these US military ex-college ballers would take over the gym during that period, and our centre and a few others had learned a ton from playing pick-up ball with them. I mean, he was averaging 40 points a game easy in games where the winning team usually only scored 50-60 max. As a point guard, my job consisted mainly of dribbling to mid-court and tossing the ball in his general vicinity at the top of the key. It was the only time in my youth sports career I was on the undisputed powerhouse, and it was indeed all kinds of fun. So one game, we're playing a small rural school, and by halftime I think we were up by 50 points. Our coach - who was a Canadian military firefighter, not that that particularly matters - put in the second stringers and told us to ease up, I think it was five passes before anyone could shoot, and no hard drives to the basket. He left the star centre in for part of the second half under strict instructions to not shoot at all (in retrospect, I think he did this so as not to insult our opponents by blatantly benching our best guy). The game carried on, and I think our opponents scored a few more than they did the first half, and I believe with just a few minutes left it was eightysomething to 25 or about that. We on the court were kinda giddy about the idea of scoring 100 points. Our coach called a timeout and read us the riot act. The score goes over 90, he said, and he'd forfeit the game. He told us to keep playing, move the ball, whatever, but no shots. He used the word "class" repeatedly, and I never forgot what it meant after that. I don't remember the details of any other game we played that year except the district championship. And that's definitely the only lasting lesson of my couple years in junior high ball before my lack of a sufficient growth spurt benched me for good. That, I submit, is great coaching.

posted by cjets at 01:28 PM on January 27, 2009

One mefite does an excellent job of explaining how his high school coach handled a similar situation and how the situation should have been handled

I think our own tahoemoj did an excellent job as well.

posted by BoKnows at 02:26 AM on January 28, 2009