« President Osama bin Obama's First Formal Interview | Main | Lawsuit Czar Proposed »

I have to go against the grain on this one. Humiliating an opponent by taking 3 pointers in the 4th q when you're already up 59-0, that's just extremely bad sportsmanship. The coach is an ass. Graceful winning is an important aspect of life; if they're not teaching things like that then what exactly is high school sports for?

The reason why soccer is so popular in socialist countries is that most games end up in ties for wins by 1 point, lest the loser "feel bad".

If this kind of nonsense had gone on years ago the legendary 222-0 trouncing of Cumberland by Geogia Tech in 1916 the coach would have been sent to jail!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Cumberland_vs._Georgia_Tech_football_game

In any sport people should do the best they can within the rules of the game and if one team blows away another then so be it.

If a basketball team cant score a single point fire the losing coach - who clearly has no clue.

No wonder America is losing its competitive edge. If we had this kind of thinking during WW II we would have said "Let not finish off the Nazis and Japs, they are losing badly, lets just let em off the hook and call it day!:.

Its the Cards who will have their heads handed to them.

I have to disagree with this one as well. Running up the score in the 4th quarter against a team that hasn't won a game in 4 years is just poor sportsmanship and disrespectful.

I'm with mega and Hawyer on this one. Winning is one thing, grinding the other team's faces in the dirt is another - that's just poor sportmanship.

Keeping the first-string in for almost the whole game (IIRC) also showed poor sportmanship toward the second-stringers on his own team, who presumably didn't come merely to watch a lopsided game, but to play a bit themselves. It's bad enough to do that to win a close game, but here it was totally unnecessary.

And IIRC, the losing team consisted of special needs kids, so that further compounds the coach's misconduct.

The purpose of sports isn't to win (pace Vince Lombardi), but rather to have fun and build character through learning sportmanship. This coach singularly failed to understand that, and therefore richly deserved to have his ass fired. I'd have fired him too.

Ironically, the Cardinals DO have quite the history of the bottom line getting in the way of their success. Wouldn't even blink if the Super Bowl coach was suddenly too expensive to keep.

Not saying the coach of the winning team was right to go for 100 but what about the coach for the other team. He could have forfeited at any time. He could see what was happening.

I think the fault is whoever organized this egregious mismatch in the first place. If the margin of victory is this wide its clear the two teams shouldn't have been competing directly in the first place.

What shocks me is the 100 points even. Haven't seen that in any basketball games I've gone to.

Don't forget Kurt Warner, already has been a Super Bowl MVP, Go Cards!!

Look what happens when a bunch of whinny sniveling liberal moonbats run a school showing how utterly stupid moonbats are

What to do when facing a seriously outmanned opponent is a Damned-If-You-Do, Damned-If-You-Don't situation. A good example of what I mean occurred during the 1989 college football season. SMU was playing its first season upon returning from a two-year program disbandment enforced by the NCAA. The team they fielded that season was a hodgepodge of freshmen, walk-ons, and guys that no one else wanted.

In October, they played Houston, who's QB Andre Ware would win the Heisman that season while piling up mountains of passing yards and TDs. Houston won the game 95-20, still running their pass-heavy offense late in the 4th quarter. There seems to be an unwritten rule in college ball that anything surpassing 69 points is too much - I've witnessed (on 2 occasions) take a knee on the PAT after their 10th TD to keep the score at 69. Houston had gone well past this, and they were lambasted in the press.

A couple of weeks later, SMU went to South Bend to play #1-ranked Notre Dame, who had just dismantled #7 Pitt 45-7. ND carried a 59-6 lead into the 4th, and even while playing guys that had never seen the field before in an Irish uniform, still found plenty of open space in front of them on running plays. Determined not to 'run up the score', the Irish, on their last four possessions,

-- repeatedly stalled in the huddle to earn 5 yard delay of game penalties.
-- repeatedly ran out of bounds short of the first down marker, with nothing but open field ahead of them.
-- had a ballcarrier, again with open field in front of him, take the ball and 'bowl' it down the field, to be recovered by SMU.
-- in one stretch, called the same play 13 times in a row.

After the game, though the SMU coach thanked ND publically for not running up the score, the SMU players (and not a few fans) were furious, as they felt condescended to, embarrassed, and patronized.

Like I said, Damned-If-You-Do, Damned-If-You-Don't.

I can only think what I would do as coach of the winning team. I would have put in the 2nd string once the lead hit 20, and put in my 3rd team (or the last 5 players on the team) by halftime. I would continue in the 2nd half with the last 5, but I would not have pressed. Other than that, I would have let the 3rd-teamers play: run the normal offense, take open shots, play good defense, play smart basketball. This is neither running up the score nor patronizing the other team.

This is pretty much how our culture is functioning now - apologizing for success. I posted about this on my blog last friday. Did you see the school that lost specializes in kids with "short attention spans" aka "ADD"? Is there a connection? Of course.

I'm rooting for the Cards seeing as my Bills are done (as usual).

Geronimo, fair enough, and a good point. It can be difficult to be sportsmanlike in this situation without appearing to be patronizing. The intent is the key, I think.

When I was single playing a girlfriend in racquetball or tennis I used to play right-handed (I'm a southpaw), which made the game a lot closer and fun for both of us. Some similar type of handicapping (shooting only with the non-dominant hand?) might have made this situation into a much better game for all concerned.

(Btw, I strongly suspect that the effort to make the score come out to 69 points exactly was intended as a joke.)

"I can only think what I would do as coach of the winning team. I would have put in the 2nd string once the lead hit 20, and put in my 3rd team (or the last 5 players on the team) by halftime. I would continue in the 2nd half with the last 5, but I would not have pressed. Other than that, I would have let the 3rd-teamers play: run the normal offense, take open shots, play good defense, play smart basketball. This is neither running up the score nor patronizing the other team."
-GeronimoRumplestiltskin

I think that sounds better than anything else I've heard, but I still think it's patronizing to a degree. I think it becomes a test of character for both sides, and so both need to be careful. I don't think a shut-out game should be seen as cruel unless it was done cruelly. 0-100 could teach you an awful lot, if you have your head in the right place. I suspect these people are soft, more than Christian, and the evidence for that lies more in their declaration of the losing team as the winners than anything else (could have said they won the moral victory, and they could possible have been right... I wasn't there).

I don't know... perhaps the winning coach should have gotten together with the opposing coach and discussed calling it a game. I think it's important to keep with the spirit of the game, but if that spirit becomes anything other than a struggle for excellence everyone loses.

Back in 1947 a cricket team from India came to Australia. It was the sort of team everyone had for breakfast.
Don Bradman, the Australian captain, was criticized in the same manner for pushing for the biggest winning margin he could muster.
The Indian captain was indignant at suggestions Australia should go easy. He said publicly that if the team suspected for one minute they were being patronized they would leave immediately. Essentially he stated there was no humiliation in losing compared with the condescension. Bradman was a by word for sportsmanship. The Indians were pleased to have the chance to try out against the world's best.
I once teased my daughter when 7 or 8 by pretending to offer play chess with her without my bishop or something. The memory of her fury at the suggestion still pleases me to this day.

I coached Little League Football some years ago. When the score spread got too wide, it was an unwritten practice for the better team to put in their 3rd stringers.
Beating a hapless team by 21 points at the half, I put in our little 3rd string team to play the 2nd half. They went and scored 2 more TDs.
After the game their irate coach asked me why I ran up the score. I told him 'Coach, there were 9 7-year olds and 2 8 year olds out there playing against your first team. It was your job to stop 'em, not mine. Should I tell a 7 year old kid not to play the best he can? Maybe you should coach soccer, in football we keep score for a reason'!

GO CARDS!

If anyone should be fired it should be the AD for allowing this game to happen. The coach's job is to get the most out of his players, not to show empathy for the other team. Sports is about competition, not empathy. If a team is unable to compete with another they shouldn't be playing.

By the way, it's better to shoot 3's. Your better field goal percentages are in the 50's. Your better 3 pt field goal percentages are in the high 30's. By shooting 3's they are taking shots that are less likely to go in.

Being on the losing end of a blowout is a good opportunity to put some character into the losing players. Don't quit, keep trying, never give up etc etc.

We still hold those principles in America, right? Or do they not keep score so the losers won't be offended and upset. Or prevent the leading team from scoring? Or force it so every kid plays the same amount of time. Not all kids can play as well as others. That makes for trying harder.

Isn't that what kid sports is all about?

More from a generation brought up to think excelling is bad form, doing well should be punished, leading is a form of arrogance, and America needs to be taken down a few notches.

Isn't it the American spirit to try, even if you get your butt handed to you? What would happen if the losing team's coach called time out and told the players "you're getting killed! I'm throwing in the towel" and the team told him "NO! We can win this!" and then made a come-back in the second half?

We would be praising their fighting spirit, that's what! Isn't it an American tradition to beat the odds or die trying? That coach should resign only after praising his girls for NOT giving up.

The coach's job is to get the most out of his players...

I'd say the coach's job is to get the best out of his players, and that includes the moral/character dimension. In fact, that is by far the most important consideration, far more important than winning or losing. Put it in context: blowing out the other team like that on purpose is closely akin to NBA trash talking, something I think all reasonable people abhor. In still another perspective, imagine the same thing in a boxing match, where beating a downed opponent would clearly be beneath contempt.

I don't think the losers have grounds to whine, but I also don't see any indication that they did. It's just that it's ungentlemanly and unsportsmanlike to go out of your way to humiliate an honorable opponent. Avoiding doing so can shade into patronizing him, but need not if done with a good heart. (Maybe I should stop watching The View. /g)

Although I'm a straight-up atheist (sorry), I also believe we're all in need of grace from time to time. It's a simple matter of the Golden Rule: today you may be the whomper, tomorrow you may be the whompee. If you have respect for your opponent, show it when it counts.

Just to clarify, for regular readers here: I'm not going soft on enemies, whom I distinguish from opponents. Big difference, in my book. I'd splatter Osama bin Laden with a smile on my face (make that an ear to ear grin), but I wouldn't grind (and haven't ground) an athletic opponent into the dirt, out of respect for him, and for the game, and, indeed, for myself. That the coach did so speaks to his character, or lack thereof.

From one bird to another SUPER BOWL SUNDAY GO CARDINALS.GO GET EM SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

Beating a bunch of kids with learning problems isn't exactly success.

And the Steelers are gonna win.

:)

I don't think anybody who watching any sport where the athletes are over 12 can honestly say that character is the most important thing in the game. Sure, we would all hope that it's there, but we watch sports because we want to see our teams win in the most exciting way possible. Just look at professional sports. We're thrilled to see good players be good human beings, but we are just as willing to watch guys like T.O., Albert Haynesworth, Manny Ramirez, Allen Iverson and Ray Lewis.

Bottom line, the coach maybe should have let up, but he shouldn't have been fired. There are a lot worse things that high school coaches are doing.

These days everything is backwards and nonsensible. We all have to learn the joy of winning and the sadness of losing. Games help us to learn to cope with disappointment and achievements.It also helps us to understand life is not always fair, Deal with it.

I don't think anybody who watching any sport where the athletes are over 12 can honestly say that character is the most important thing in the game. Sure, we would all hope that it's there, but we watch sports because we want to see our teams win in the most exciting way possible. Just look at professional sports.

And therein lies the problem with professional sports.

I'm not OK with athletes talking trash, showboating, or trying to humiliate their opponents. T.O. signs a football with a Sharpie? Ban him for the season. Half of the NFL and virtually all of the NBA apparently belong in prison. Choke your coach? You're gone - forever. (Try this at your workplace and see what happens.) Talk trash? Play dirty? Dance around like a fool? Fine them 5% of their annual pay for each instance. Cal Ripken Jr. is the model; Allen Iverson is the anti-model.

Same thing with coaches. If I were the AD, the first chair Bobby Knight threw would have had his career flying away with it. I'd fire him publicly, on the spot, if I were in attendance.

There are a lot worse things that high school coaches are doing.

So the excuse is others are doing worse? Fire them too. We need to clean up the culture generally. Hollywood, politics, and sports are manifestations of the rot, and therefore the places to start cleaning first.

Character counts.

you cant be 2 good in life ...you'll get shut down..there is always a hater around looking...

Posted by: Jim at January 27, 2009 2:00 PM

Getting absolutely caned is one of the best ways to learn quickly. I played for many different indoor soccer teams in Australia and we always started off at the bottom of the league, and always went on to dominate it within 2-3 seasons..

What I'm saying is that we don't watch sports for the character. We never have. Gladiators, Jousters, professional athletes. None of those were popular because they were good people. They were popular because they satisfied our desire to see competition. Making sports "nicer" won't make them more watchable. How about we leave character to more important things like our politicians, educators and religious leaders? That would clean up our culture more than firing a coach because he let his team beat another one by too much.