Basketball coach wins 100-0 and is fired..

[Barihawk]

"It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened. This clearly does not reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to competition,"

 

 

 

What a contradiction. Someone clearly does not know what competition is. And firing someone for a ridiculous reason like that does not reflect a "Christlike and honorable approach to administration", does it?

 

 

 

What is competition, in your views? Friendly sport, or a game that must be won at all costs? Having actually COACHED a high school team, and having beat several teams where they didn't show up at all, I would do my best to give them a fair shot. My superiors liked this, too. Competition does not have to be about winning, at least in the sense of KIDS playing a game. This isn't pro football, this is not college athletics. Budgets are not determined by who wins or loses. It's about the students playing the game. Some of those kids get no respect off the court, and the game is their life. Whether they are good at it or not doesn't matter.

 

 

 

And I explained the likely reasoning behind the firing in my last post. When the parents of your students are actually paying the school to go there, your faculty is expected to be professional at all times.

 

 

 

You are not an athlete, you are not a coach, you are not a teacher. You understand very little about the forces that worked in this decision. Gathering from a lot of the posts in this thread, a lot of you guys don't even have all the facts. If I had boasted about running up the score, my [wagon] would be reprimanded at the very least. At least given the "one more screwup and you are gone" speech.

 

 

 

Competition without sportsmanship is meaningless. Might as well throw the kids some swords and helmets if you don't give about fair play.

[Zierro]

Do you really have to boast about what position you're in to make a certain claim every single time you give your opinions? That's appeal to authority and it's very getting annoying.

 

 

 

I don't have to be a coach or athlete to look up the real definition of the word "competition", do I? Maybe if they would have used a different word it would have been justified, but competition implies nothing about holding back just to raise the self-esteem of the other team.

 

 

 

Now I ask you: Does firing someone for a reason like that reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to administration? It's a yes or no question.

[Barihawk]

Do you really have to boast about what position you're in to make a certain claim every single time you give your opinions? That's appeal to authority and it's very getting annoying.

 

 

 

I don't have to be a coach or athlete to look up the real definition of the word "competition", do I? Maybe if they would have used a different word, it would have been justified, but competition implies nothing about holding back just to raise the self-esteem of the other team.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I am boasting. But that was my intent. Guess what, I'm qualified to say this. I know way more about how the world works than a lot of you guys by merit of age and life experience. To the topic, I know how these athletic events work because I have been there. Whenever we get to a subject that you are professionally licensed in, you can feel free to hoist your experience over me at any time and I will respect that.

 

 

 

As for the second, I give you wiki.

 

 

 

Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play.

 

 

 

There's a difference between brute competition and the competition that happens between high school kids. It's called sportsmanship.

 

 

 

As for high school sports, they aren't for winning:

 

 

 

These many activities serve as a means of developing a learning experience and enjoyment for physical and health activities, athletic skills, individual and team participation, leadership, and the responsibility of promoting positive sportsmanship and school spirit.

 

 

 

The Glen Ullin School Board believes that administrators/supervisors must insist that good sportsmanship is the goal; athletic directors must realize the value of sportsmanship and set the tone for the implementation of its good practice.

 

 

 

North Richland Hills High School believes that sports programs serve educational purposes in the lives of the district's students. One of these purposes is the development of good sportsmanship. The primary focus of achieving good sportsmanship is not only the student, but everyone involved - students, coaches, parents and spectators

 

 

 

The coaches must accept the responsibility of making each athletic contest a showcase for education. They are expected to be models of self control and dignity for players and spectators.

 

 

 

The players must be taught to handle themselves in a sportsmanlike way; they are also expected to project good sportsmanship in the activities in which they participate. Student fans must be reminded that their conduct reflects on their school, and that poor sportsmanship will not be tolerated.

 

 

 

My school:

 

Coaches and other adult supervisors are also expected to exhibit good sportsmanship. Instances of failure to do so will result in disciplinary action such as oral and written reprimands; failure to correct negative behavior could result in possible suspension from extra-curricular activities.

 

 

 

Taken from various area school websites.

[db300]

I've been on some pretty bad basketball teams in my life, and it would be annoying when other teams eased up. I would honestly rather get blown out by the other teams subs then have them just pass around the whole time.

[Zierro]

I'm sorry if I am boasting.

 

 

 

Don't lie and tell me that you're sorry. You always just happen to bring up how you're a teacher. I barely even seen any of your posts, but still from what I've seen you always seem to mention it. That doesn't put you on a pedestal Barihawk.

 

 

 

Guess what, I'm qualified to say this. I know way more about how the world works than a lot of you guys by merit of age and life experience.

 

 

 

I know what appeal to authority is, so I'm in the position to claim that every post you make that has boasting in it is nothing but crap. And that's just the way it is. Not very fair logic, huh?

 

 

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

 

 

Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play.

 

 

 

You have a degree in education and you don't even know what is meant by fair play? Wow... This is exactly why that is a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

First of all, it means that as long as you are not infringing upon the set rules, then it is fair play. I give you thefreedictionary:

 

 

 

Fair play: Conformity to established rules.

 

 

 

Is there an established rule that states the other team must hold back in order to raise the self-esteem of the rivaling team?

 

 

 

Second of all, I don't think you understand what competition is. Again, I give you thefreedictionary:

 

 

 

Compete: To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory.

 

 

 

Anything in there about holding back? No, actually I think the word "strive" implies the contrary. Did you also see the word "against"?

 

 

 

Like I said, they could have used a much better word for the reason behind firing the guy. Competition was the wrong word to use.

 

 

 

Again I ask you:

Does firing someone for a reason like that reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to administration? It's a yes or no question.

[Barihawk]

Ever met someone with a doctoral degree? Introducing themselves as Doctor So&So? It might sound rude and annoying, but they earned that right. Considering I've sunk $25 grand into my various certifications and degrees, I think I can pull the card whenever the hell I feel like it. Doesn't make my claims any less valid and to be honest I don't give a damn if it bothers you. I carved my pedestal out of years of dedication, hard work, sweat, and tears.

 

 

 

I'm also very aware of the logical fallacies. I don't give a crap. You have given me the impression the last few years of your ability to typecast entire groups of people based on a small few, which is a fallacy in it's own right. Religious discussion on this board constantly violates Burden of Proof fallacy. Your specific fallacy here is fallacy of composition. God forbid Ad Hominem Abusive and poisoning the well.

 

 

 

Again, I give you SCHOOL POLICIES regarding competition. These are children, not professionals and not college athletes.

 

 

 

And I hate to be an elitist bastard parading around my authority, but you have no idea what some of these kids lives are like. I had children in my classroom who the only time they'd ever smile is on the court. I had kids who were so poor that the only food they really got was the free cheese sandwich at lunch. I had kids who, for them, the game meant everything. The very fact that people were out there cheering for them, win or lose, was enough to keep them from stepping out in front of a bus.

 

 

 

High school athletics are NOT about winning or losing. While that's nice, that's not what it's about. It's about learning self-control, respect, teamwork, coordination, and putting your own glory aside to benefit the overall team. The job of the coach is to ensure that these needs are met. When we lost a game by a few points, I'd be upset for all of five seconds before the educator in me switched on and I'd ask "ok, what did we do wrong." Bam! Analysis for these kids, who probably couldn't read a periodic table if they tried.

 

 

 

Yes, the goal on the court is to win. But that coach was not exercising self-control, nor was he setting an example onto his students. He was not respecting those other kids who were having difficulties. He was only looking for glory. That goes against every aspect of sportsmanship as defined by the codes of conduct I posted in my previous post. If you can't play with respect and sportsmanship, there's no point playing the damn game. This isn't college, you get paid win or lose. The kids are only there for fun, not for a chance to strike it big. It's a completely different league of competition.

 

 

 

If Collegiate sports were the Olympics, High School would be the Special Olympics. No offense intended, but winning is not the goal. It's making dreams happen.

 

 

 

You have a degree in education and you don't even know what is meant by fair play? Wow... First of all, it means that as long as you are not infringing upon the set rules, then it is fair play.

 

 

 

That's the base definition of fair play. It's not the only definition. Oxford describes fair play as also being:

 

a conventional standard of honourable behaviour

 

 

 

The thing about dictionaries is that they are cold and ruthless jerks, without the ability to sense context in any given situation.

 

 

 

Is there an established rule that states the other team must hold back in order to raise the self-esteem of the rivaling team?

 

 

 

It's called the no-mercy rule. At least in UIL rules, if the score is 60-0 at halftime, the game is over. 59-0 at halftime? Can you say technicality? Most refs would have called that if there were no complaints.

 

 

 

Compete: To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory.

 

 

 

In personal competition, yes. But then again, these are children who are playing their lives out. When victory is assured, the least you could do is give them a chance. Since all those school policies I quoted up there say that self-esteem is one of the most important factors that their districts have athletic programs, I think I'd want to allow those kids on the other team to walk away with at least a little self respect. After all, the coach not only strives to educate his own team, but provide the very same obligations to the other team. You are a role model, not some guy getting paid 100k+ a year to win. You are a teacher first, coach second.

 

 

 

But that's me on my pedestal. Can you hear me down there?

 

 

 

 

 

Does firing someone for a reason like that reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to administration? It's a yes or no question.

 

 

 

No, not in that context. But when you actually read the facts behind the story like how he was not a first time offender and how he had been boasting to the press about the win, that's damaging your school's reputation and undermining the respect that a school needs to properly educate students. Not to mention that when you have a private school paid for by parents, when said parents get pissy, results happen. Parents asked for this guy's head on a silver platter, they obviously did not want him teaching their children. And they pay the bills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Don't know if you've read this, but in some situations I have no problem with his actions. If I was playing with friends, or coaching professional sports, I'd have no problem running up the score. Particularly in the latter sense where I am literally getting paid to win at all costs. But in this situation (read high school) the objective is not to win at all costs. Some schools may act like it is (coming from Texas where football is played like this) but basketball in high school as opposed to football usually involves students who come from impoverished backgrounds or have other problems as opposed to the popular "wealthier" kids who end up playing football.

[Zierro]

Ever met someone with a doctoral degree? Introducing themselves as Doctor So&So? It might sound rude and annoying, but they earned that right. Considering I've sunk $25 grand into my various certifications and degrees, I think I can pull the card whenever the hell I feel like it. Doesn't make my claims any less valid and to be honest I don't give a damn if it bothers you. I carved my pedestal out of years of dedication, hard work, sweat, and tears.

 

 

 

It doesn't make your claims any more valid either. There is a reason that it is a logical fallacy, and that's because your position has very little or nothing to do with the argument. Hell, we could be on different ends of the spectrum in this argument, but would your position validate your point any further? What if I were a coach and was in the position to make those claims - what would you resort to hiding behind then? We'd both be on the pedestal.

 

 

 

I'm also very aware of the logical fallacies. I don't give a crap. You have given me the impression the last few years of your ability to typecast entire groups of people based on a small few, which is a fallacy in it's own right. Religious discussion on this board constantly violates Burden of Proof fallacy. Your specific fallacy here is fallacy of composition. God forbid Ad Hominem Abusive and poisoning the well.

 

 

 

So you ignore logical fallacies? I will admit that people throw them around a lot especially on TIF, but my point was that your position has nothing to do with your opinions on the argument at hand. Take out the fact that it's a logical fallacy if you want, but it's still an illogical approach. And plus, you were the first to engage in poisoning the well by saying we don't have any experience, therefore our opinions are invalid.

 

 

 

And I hate to be an elitist bastard parading around my authority, but you have no idea what some of these kids lives are like. I had children in my classroom who the only time they'd ever smile is on the court. I had kids who were so poor that the only food they really got was the free cheese sandwich at lunch. I had kids who, for them, the game meant everything. The very fact that people were out there cheering for them, win or lose, was enough to keep them from stepping out in front of a bus.

 

 

 

I have no idea?? There you go again, assuming that you've seen and know everything the world has to offer and the person you're talking to is completely ignorant. I've seen my fair share of lost souls too. Trust me.

 

 

 

High school athletics are NOT about winning or losing. While that's nice, that's not what it's about. It's about learning self-control, respect, teamwork, coordination, and putting your own glory aside to benefit the overall team. The job of the coach is to ensure that these needs are met. When we lost a game by a few points, I'd be upset for all of five seconds before the educator in me switched on and I'd ask "ok, what did we do wrong." Bam! Analysis for these kids, who probably couldn't read a periodic table if they tried.

 

 

 

Agreed. The thing I don't agree on is that the coach was exhibiting a non Christlike approach to competition. Does that even exist, or is it just a term used to get exactly what you want in the Christian world? I'd say the latter. Goodness, you hurt my feelings by saying I am not in a position to give the opinions I've gave, Barihawk! Is that a Christlike approach to competition?

 

 

 

I like how you said we should put glory aside... That goes both ways. If we shouldn't care about the glory of the team with the score of 100, why should we care about the glory of the team with 0?

 

 

 

Yes, the goal on the court is to win. But that coach was not exercising self-control, nor was he setting an example onto his students. He was not respecting those other kids who were having difficulties. He was only looking for glory. That goes against every aspect of sportsmanship as defined by the codes of conduct I posted in my previous post. If you can't play with respect and sportsmanship, there's no point playing the damn game. This isn't college, you get paid win or lose. The kids are only there for fun, not for a chance to strike it big. It's a completely different league of competition.

 

 

 

He praised his own team for their honor and integrity yet you say he's not setting an example? You act like he went on the court and murdered the other kids. No. He was coaching his kids which is part of the sporting experience. And if the other team got discouraged the first time, they will learn from their mistakes and try harder. If anything they learned a very valuable life lesson that hard work is compensated with victory and success. Yet, he's not setting a good example... :roll:

 

 

 

Plus, if they were up by about 30 I think it's obvious that they weren't playing to win but to test their limits and endurance instead - maybe with the goal of playing a nearly perfect game. (100-0)

 

 

 

If Collegiate sports were the Olympics, High School would be the Special Olympics. No offense intended, but winning is not the goal. It's making dreams happen.

 

 

 

If you give the other team a handicap, you're taking away from the fun of the other team. What if the kids had a dream of a 100-0 score? That is a pretty great achievement that would make any team happy, and they worked for it!! It's a two-way street.

 

 

 

No, not in that context. But when you actually read the facts behind the story like how he was not a first time offender and how he had been boasting to the press about the win, that's damaging your school's reputation and undermining the respect that a school needs to properly educate students. Not to mention that when you have a private school paid for by parents, when said parents get pissy, results happen. Parents asked for this guy's head on a silver platter, they obviously did not want him teaching their children. And they pay the bills.

 

 

 

Your answer is no, making their reason for firing him hypocritical. Maybe he did deserve to be fired, but not for the reason which they stated.

[pureprayer]

Maybe the coach wanted to see who had heart?

 

 

 

Where I live when my coach watches the football game he sees who tries 100% of the game. Just a thought.

[Barihawk]

I snuck in a ninja edit in the previous post, just to let you know.

 

 

 

And again with the fallacies. I don't care, usually most people don't care since we toss them around so much. It's the internet after all. Last man standing has the bigger genitalia, and what all.

 

 

 

The thing I don't agree on is that the coach was exhibiting a non Christlike approach to competition. Does that even exist, or is it just a term used to get exactly what you want in the Christian world? I'd say the latter. Goodness, you hurt my feelings by saying I am not in a position to give the opinions I've gave, Barihawk! Is that a Christlike approach to competition?

 

 

 

So is this a legitimate argument or are you just making a big deal out of this because of your personal vendetta against Christianity? I'd say the latter. That statement was made weeks ago and you drag it out after the fact just because it bothers you. The reasoning behind the original statement was that Christian principles would have asked that he consider going easy on the other team. I never said that was the actual reason they fired him. For all I know none of the board members at this school are even religious, and that they'd fire a teacher for spilling a crumb on the floor. It was just a vague statement stated in a rather nonchalant manner to end a post with a bang. I personally thought it was ironic that behavior was even tolerated at a Christian school. I really had no major significance for it, but it seems to have bothered you to the point of starting this.

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen my fair share of lost souls too. Trust me.

 

 

 

Good for you, it's important that people get exposed to reality. Unfortunately this topic is about coaching basketball and I've coached said lost souls in basketball. Go figure if I assume I have a little leeway to interpret this story.

 

 

I like how you said we should put glory aside... That goes both ways. If we shouldn't care about the glory of the team with the score of 100, why should we care about the glory of the team with 0?

 

 

 

There's a subtle difference between glory and self-respect. The latter of which is worth far more.

 

 

He praised his own team for their honor and integrity yet you say he's not setting an example? You act like he went on the court and murdered the other kids.

 

 

 

The kids were just doing what their coach was telling them to do. I have no doubt that they played with great skill and deserved their victory. However he should have let up on the clearly inferior team and sent in the benchwarmers. For one thing, it gives THEM some of that self-esteem and gives them a chance to get some of that honor and integrity.

[pureprayer]

Bari if everyone got equal play time in that game would it be alright?

[Barihawk]

Bari if everyone got equal play time in that game would it be alright?

 

 

 

If he put out his second and third string players and gave them equal play time in the second half, then they still would have won while giving at least a fair shot to the other team. I would have had no problem with it. He would have done his best to give the other team a chance without "copping out" as some others would have said. I do not think he should have had his athletes "hold back" as in passing the ball around and such, but he himself should have held back and put in the other lines. Let the kids do their best, but don't have the best players only out there. That would have been an excellent time for the bench warmers to play. I usually throw second string out if we are up by 30 and third when they get tired. I also mix my strings a bit to keep the kids from getting too winded. After all, they are 9th graders, not Magic Johnson. They didn't ride the bus 30-40 miles to sit on their butts.

[Zierro]

So is this a legitimate argument or are you just making a big deal out of this because of your personal vendetta against Christianity? I'd say the latter. That statement was made weeks ago and you drag it out after the fact just because it bothers you. The reasoning behind the original statement was that Christian principles would have asked that he consider going easy on the other team. I never said that was the actual reason they fired him. For all I know none of the board members at this school are even religious, and that they'd fire a teacher for spilling a crumb on the floor. It was just a vague statement stated in a rather nonchalant manner to end a post with a bang. I really had no major signifigance for it, but it seems to have bothered you to the point of starting this.

 

 

 

And really, you fired the first shot.

 

 

 

Go read some of my posts in the religious threads and you'll see the most recent ones are against atheism. You assume way too much. Quite ironic for someone who claims not to be big on labels.

 

 

 

Good for you, it's important that people get exposed to reality. Unfortunately this topic is about coaching basketball and I've coached said lost souls in basketball. Go figure if I assume I have a little leeway to interpret this story.

 

 

 

I kept score for basketball games for my community service and watched 8 to 16-year-olds play. Some of which were lost souls too. I didn't feel the need to bring it up until now though, since I guess position in life means everything to you. Maybe now you'll respect my opinion more?

 

 

 

The kids were just doing what their coach was telling them to do. I have no doubt that they played with great skill and deserved their victory. However he should have let up on the clearly inferior team and sent in the benchwarmers. For one thing, it gives THEM some of that self-esteem and gives them a chance to get some of that honor and integrity.

 

 

 

You just contradicted your own point.

 

 

 

My response to your ninja edit:

 

 

 

Plus, if they were up by about 30 I think it's obvious that they weren't playing to win but to test their limits and endurance instead - maybe with the goal of playing a nearly perfect game. (100-0)

 

 

 

It's a huge contradiction. If the intent shouldn't be to win, why does the score matter at all? Who cares if you got 0 points?

[Barihawk]

I didn't feel the need to bring it up until now though, since I guess position in life means everything to you. Maybe now you'll respect my opinion more?

 

 

 

It really doesn't. I'm not this way off the screen, really. But while you do have experience, I have firsthand experience and my own set of rules to follow. When a coach signs a school's contract, he has to follow their set of guidelines for conduct, first.

 

 

 

I'm really sorry if I give you the impression that I give [cabbage] about anything but "stations in life" but let's face it. There's conjecturing about something and then there's having firsthand experience. I'm qualified in discussions on education, history, and athletics because guess what, I get paid to do this for a living. Like I said before, if you have firsthand experience in a subject being debated, you damn well come out and say it. Real life doesn't give two cents for your opinion unless you are "qualified" to make it.

 

 

 

When it comes down to it, experience and station are deserved. When I meet someone who has more experience than me, I sit my [wagon] down and listen. Because after all, they know more about it than I do. Their opinions go beyond opinion, because they are backed up by experience.

 

 

 

So I'm sorry if I offend you with talk of experience but that's how the world works.

 

 

 

Go read some of my posts in the religious threads and you'll see the most recent ones are against atheism. You assume way too much. Quite ironic for someone who claims not to be big on labels.

 

 

 

Read some of my posts and you will note I never argue against atheism, not once. I simply seek to inform those who make uninformed and sometimes bigoted claims against people who believe differently from them. I don't label people, because I recognize that there is no black and white, merely varying shades of gray. Sorry I made the assumption. That's all I could really postulate considering you seemed to pick that quote out of air just to make a crack about Christian morals.

[mmmcannibalism]

I don't have to be a coach or athlete to look up the real definition of the word "competition", do I? Maybe if they would have used a different word it would have been justified, but competition implies nothing about holding back just to raise the self-esteem of the other team.

 

 

 

so your arguing semantics I take it?

[luluu247]

for people who don't understand, he's sort of violating the code

 

in basketball. if your killing a team, than in the second half you take

 

out your subs and pratice new plays, you don't try and whip the other

 

team. i wish my coaches woud let us try and whip a few teams though, it

 

would be cool. as for this guy, he really shouldn't of gottern fired, but it was a

 

dishournable thing to do

[Zierro]

I don't have to be a coach or athlete to look up the real definition of the word "competition", do I? Maybe if they would have used a different word it would have been justified, but competition implies nothing about holding back just to raise the self-esteem of the other team.

 

 

 

so your arguing semantics I take it?

 

 

 

Duh. Come on... "Christlike approach to competition"? What the hell is that? I never said the coach shouldn't be punished. Just that the reason which they stated was a bogus one. There is no such thing as a Christlike approach to competition unless you bring up cheating, purposely fouling, and the likes. You know, the more extreme stuff.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

I don't have to be a coach or athlete to look up the real definition of the word "competition", do I? Maybe if they would have used a different word it would have been justified, but competition implies nothing about holding back just to raise the self-esteem of the other team.

 

 

 

so your arguing semantics I take it?

 

 

 

Duh. Come on... "Christlike approach to competition"? What the hell is that? I never said the coach shouldn't be punished. Just that the reason which they stated was a bogus one. There is no such thing as a Christlike approach to competition unless you bring up cheating, purposely fouling, and the likes. You know, the more extreme stuff.

[/hide]

 

 

 

whether or not you agree with the opinion, not trying to win 100-0 and lightening up when winning is what they mean by a "christ like approach". Do you really think the other team was so bad that the 100 poitns scored themselves? If you think its wrong to limit your scoring okay, but it is a private school and they can set up the standards of competition for their players and coaches.

[Zierro]

I never said it was a good thing. What I did say was that they shouldn't attach the label "Christlike" to an act of firing someone and especially not attach it to a form of competition. That's too extreme of a measure to use when your initial point is just to tell someone they're doing wrong. I could say that politics are not Christlike. Churches taking donations instead of feeding the needy is not Christlike. I don't see the reason to compare someone's bad actions with that of Jesus when 1.) everybody commits wrong-doings, and 2.) almost anything can be considered a wrong-doing.

 

 

 

So basically, I don't think labeling something as "not Christlike" is very Christlike. And yes, that very sentence would be considered not Christlike.

[Barihawk]

Zierro, you are grossly mistaken. The school did not fire the coach for not being "Christlike."

 

 

 

That was a sarcastic comment I made about it being a Christian school. It was never meant for more than a sarcastic comment. I'm sorry you took that the wrong way, and I should have added a rolling eyes smiley after it. Sorry for getting you confused and leading to pages of argument.

[scn64]

Zierro, you are grossly mistaken. The school did not fire the coach for not being "Christlike."

 

 

 

That was a sarcastic comment I made about it being a Christian school. It was never meant for more than a sarcastic comment. I'm sorry you took that the wrong way, and I should have added a rolling eyes smiley after it. Sorry for getting you confused and leading to pages of argument.

 

 

 

I think Zierro was referring to this quote from the original post:

 

 

 

"It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened. This clearly does not reflect a Christlike and honorable approach to competition," said the statement, signed by Queal and board chair Todd Doshier.

[Barihawk]

Oh, never even saw that. I just said it and that's what he quoted. Shows me :P. Next time quote the article in context and not me, ya big lug. Guess I should go stalk down a crow and gorge.

[Mystik01]

to everyone saying this isnt a bad thing

 

 

 

there is a difference between ensuring a good margin of victory and being a total jerk about it. A 100 point margin in basketball is a ridiculous disgrace. It would be one thing if they had won this by say 50 points but to keep scoring after there is no way the other team can even come close to catching up is pathetic. Seriously, you dont see anything wrong in winning any sport by that kind of margin? edit--just to be clear, Im not saying they had to give the other team a chance of winning, but they should have shown the respect to stop shooting after a certain point.

 

 

 

on the actual story

 

 

 

I believe the same thing happened in my area, but the coach quickly apologized avoiding a firing etc.. I thought the coaches statement that his girls played honorably is hilarious, its pretty easy to just stop shooting in basketball

 

 

 

You are a pathetic disgrace if I may say so. To stop shooting the basketball, to stop playing to your full capacity, and to show mercy to another team is a sign of piss poor sportsmanship in my books. To play underneath their level is a slap in the losing team's face, and just basically mocking the fact that the suck. If I was on a losing end of a game, I would NEVER want my opponents to let up. Because at the point in which they start giving any mercy, then any scores my team puts up doesn't amount to squat.

 

 

 

Good sportsmanship is to play the game from tip off to the last buzzer with pride, dignity and giving it 100% all the way through. Piss poor sportsmanship is the other team or anyone else expecting the victors to lay off just because they are winning.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

to everyone saying this isnt a bad thing

 

 

 

there is a difference between ensuring a good margin of victory and being a total jerk about it. A 100 point margin in basketball is a ridiculous disgrace. It would be one thing if they had won this by say 50 points but to keep scoring after there is no way the other team can even come close to catching up is pathetic. Seriously, you dont see anything wrong in winning any sport by that kind of margin? edit--just to be clear, Im not saying they had to give the other team a chance of winning, but they should have shown the respect to stop shooting after a certain point.

 

 

 

on the actual story

 

 

 

I believe the same thing happened in my area, but the coach quickly apologized avoiding a firing etc.. I thought the coaches statement that his girls played honorably is hilarious, its pretty easy to just stop shooting in basketball

 

 

 

You are a pathetic disgrace if I may say so. To stop shooting the basketball, to stop playing to your full capacity, and to show mercy to another team is a sign of piss poor sportsmanship in my books. To play underneath their level is a slap in the losing team's face, and just basically mocking the fact that the suck. If I was on a losing end of a game, I would NEVER want my opponents to let up. Because at the point in which they start giving any mercy, then any scores my team puts up doesn't amount to squat.

 

 

 

Good sportsmanship is to play the game from tip off to the last buzzer with pride, dignity and giving it 100% all the way through. Piss poor sportsmanship is the other team or anyone else expecting the victors to lay off just because they are winning.

[/hide]

 

 

 

you wouldnt say that if you were losing a game 100-0.

 

 

 

I already had this argument earlier on this thread, its one thing to just stop shooting and mess with the team, the ethics of that is debateable. It is in the spirit of competition to put in your worst players and have them play their best game so the other team doesnt feel like they are being crushed for an hour.

[Estonian dude]

Not just putting in your worst players, but like we did when my team won 103-0, the second half we played so that we couldn't bounce the ball. We had to practice shooting. And we tried new combinations. That is the true sportsmanship, to train.

[Kiriyama]

[hide=]

to everyone saying this isnt a bad thing

 

 

 

there is a difference between ensuring a good margin of victory and being a total jerk about it. A 100 point margin in basketball is a ridiculous disgrace. It would be one thing if they had won this by say 50 points but to keep scoring after there is no way the other team can even come close to catching up is pathetic. Seriously, you dont see anything wrong in winning any sport by that kind of margin? edit--just to be clear, Im not saying they had to give the other team a chance of winning, but they should have shown the respect to stop shooting after a certain point.

 

 

 

on the actual story

 

 

 

I believe the same thing happened in my area, but the coach quickly apologized avoiding a firing etc.. I thought the coaches statement that his girls played honorably is hilarious, its pretty easy to just stop shooting in basketball

 

 

 

You are a pathetic disgrace if I may say so. To stop shooting the basketball, to stop playing to your full capacity, and to show mercy to another team is a sign of piss poor sportsmanship in my books. To play underneath their level is a slap in the losing team's face, and just basically mocking the fact that the suck. If I was on a losing end of a game, I would NEVER want my opponents to let up. Because at the point in which they start giving any mercy, then any scores my team puts up doesn't amount to squat.

 

 

 

Good sportsmanship is to play the game from tip off to the last buzzer with pride, dignity and giving it 100% all the way through. Piss poor sportsmanship is the other team or anyone else expecting the victors to lay off just because they are winning.

[/hide]

 

 

 

you wouldnt say that if you were losing a game 100-0.

 

 

 

I already had this argument earlier on this thread, its one thing to just stop shooting and mess with the team, the ethics of that is debateable. It is in the spirit of competition to put in your worst players and have them play their best game so the other team doesnt feel like they are being crushed for an hour.

 

 

 

Actually it would be pretty insulting for them to stop trying their best. They might aswell say "We're that much better than you, we're going to play piss poor in order to give you a chance at a comeback since you're that pathetic we don't even need to try."