Coach Wins 56-0, faced suspension

Great Debates
1

Bridgeport, Connecticut, Central High School’s football team won their season opener against Bassick, 56-0. The first quarter ended 35-0. By the second quarter, Bridgeport coach Dave Cadelina was sitting his starters on the bench and playing his second and third strings, but even so, by half-time they were up 49-0. Reportedly Cadelina conferred briefly with the opposing coach, George Loughrey, and Loughrey pointed out that Cadelina was in “worse shape” then he was.

That’s because the C.I.A.C., which governs high school sports in Connecticut, has a new rule this year: a coach whose team wins by more than 50 points is suspended for one game.

Cadelina tried – he kept the ball on the ground, ordering no passing in the third quarter. But he didn’t order his guys to fall down, step out of bounds, or otherwise deliberately lose, because, he apparently thought, such blatant tactics would humiliate the opposing team. Loughrey agreed with that approach, and said that Cadelina acted entirely properly… but still, at the final whistle, the score stood at 56-0 and Cadelina faced a suspension.

Fortunately, there was an appeal process in place, and Cadelina’s impending suspension was ultimately lifted after Loughrey and the game officials testified on his behalf.

Still…

I played football in high school.

I think this “Fifty Point” rule is absolutely absurd. Football is about competition. Sometimes the competition is lopsided and you get your ass kicked. It makes sense for a coach to bench his starters during a blowout – I have no problem with that. This rule goes much further – thankfully, the coach was willing to risk his own suspension and not follow the rule blindly, which would have had the absurd and humiliating result of deliberately losing downs or yardage. Thankfully, the other coach and the officials were willing to come to his defense. But all of those thankful circumstances do not cure the foolishness of the rule in the first place.

Competition is good. Losing has its place. Not everyone can win. Not every game can be close. Stop making rules to create an artificial environment of equality. We’re not all equal. Some of us are better at some things. Some of us suck at some things. That’s the way it is.

2

I agree. If they’re going to have a mercy rule, make it that the game ends at a 50 point differential, not suspending the coach for his team scoring that often. Infact they had this rule when I was playing highschool soccer. If the game ever got to be 10-0, it was just over.

3

Any background on why the rule was enacted? From my outsider point of view it seems wholly arbitrary and stupid, but in the real world people are generally acting in what they believe as the best interests of the community they are making rules for. Why were the governing officials enacting such a rule?

Enjoy,
Steven

4

Damn liberals.

How common is this type of rule? I know that it’s fairly common in little league or kids’ soccer to not keep score, but in HS…? That sounds odd.

5

Sounds like a dumb rule. I would also substitute a 50 point mercy rule and not suspend the coach.

Jim

6

Agree here as well. It’s bad form to run up the score, and I think it happens in college because the ranking system is so screwed up. But, in this case, the team didn’t try to run up the score; the other team was just really, really bad. Running up the score would be passing the ball, having the starters on the field, and so on. What else is he supposed to do, have them go kneel, kneel, kneel, punt, every time they get the ball? That’s somewhere between clock-killing and humiliating.

As Gregg Easterbrook says in this week’s TMQ: “Sour Game Situation: Chad Johnson of the Bengals got popped hard and staggered off the field woozy with two minutes remaining against Cleveland. Many in the sports-yak world have wondered what he was doing on the field with Cincinnati leading 34-10 and two minutes to play. But wait, Carson Palmer was also on the field, and Rudi Johnson, and the Cincinnati starting offensive line. What were any of these guys doing on the field with two minutes left in a rout? For that matter, why was Cincinnati passing? Two minutes remaining, a 34-10 lead and the first team is still on the field, heaving passes, trying to run up the score. The football gods will exact vengeance for this.”

7

Yeah, that’s what gets me most about this. It says the coach did try to keep the score down - what if there are scouts in the crowd on the day a player gets asked to play badly?

8

Apparently the rule was enacted last year after a 90-0 blowout, by a coach that deliberately ran up the score. That coach was later fired after he punched an opposing coach during a different event.

9

What an awesome human being… or whatever.

10

This rule is completely wrong. It is dangerous to play football and not try to win. That’s how you get hurt. A mercy rule at the high school level is fine as there are sometimes obvious mismatches.

11

I can’t speak for soccer but I have never heard of a Little League where they didn’t keep score.

12

My first year in Tee Ball they didn’t keep score. We would always ask who won at the end of the game and coaches always flippantly just responded it was a tie. It took us at least halfway through the season to realize that it was unlikely that every game was a tie, and that often this alleged result bore no resemblance to what we actually experienced on the field. (What can I say, kids are stupid. (or at least extremely credulous)).

My dad was Director the following year and changed that policy. I think we were the better for it.

13

Total points scored can make a difference in breaking ties for post-season standings, post-season opponents, wild card picks, etc… If the Bengals tied with another team for the wild card, for example, and tied in a couple of other statistics as well, the wild card would be awarded to the team with the most net points scored. So it could make a difference.

This is also the reason they allow teams to kick an extra point even if time is expired and it makes no difference to the game outcome.

14

Typical knee-jerk reaction then. They wrote the rule to address a single situation, without considering other possible scenarios that would trigger it.

Chalk up another vote for a simple mercy rule.

15

As long as the opposing coach and officials think you’re being a responsible coach, not running up the score to humiliate the opponent, then you don’t get suspended. That’s not so bad

I would probably prefer the rule to read that any scores >50 point margin will be investigated for improper coaching, rather than have an automatic suspension that the coach has to appeal.

16

You can go tohttp://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakers to see the tie breaker rules. It doesn’t come down to points often, but it isn’t unheard of (I think it got down to that just within the last few years. The fact is, these are paid professionals, so we shouldn’t be feeling sorry for them for getting demolished… its there job. OTOH, a team with the class not to run up the score (like Jacksonville kneeling down at within the 5 yard-line with 2 minutes to play last Monday) says a lot about the character of the team, the coach, and the organization as a whole.
As far as the OP, I agree that its a stupid rule. My sophmore year of high school, I attended a brand new school, which meant no senior class. Our football team was terrible, and we got blown out a lot including a 55-0 game against the school which most of us had attended the previous year. They were being jerks, and they left their starters in the whole game. Later, we had a 35-0 loss to the other school that everyone else had attended, with similar circumstances (leaving starters in the whole game). Sure, we were demoralized, but that’s the name of the game. The next year, we beat the first school 37-0, but our starters were out before the end of the third quarter. The one game we did have a complete blow out, it was 35-0 at the first quarter mark, and 48-0 (we missed a PAT) by the time our second string went in. After the half, our third string was in there.

Bottom line, its classy not to run up the score, but it certainly shouldn’t be required, and definitely not to the point of suspending the coach. Just because one coach was a jerk doesn’t mean you should punish the rest. I even disagree with a mercy rule… for many of the seniors on the team, it could be their last season, or even their last game… if they’re THAT much better, should they be punished and have their game cut short? Even if I was losing terribly, I’d hate to remember my last game as one where we were so terrible that they ended the game at half-time. Besides, if the coach is any good, the kids will agree with the whole “class act, don’t run up the score” mentality, and be fine with a bunch of running, or letting in some of the 2nd/3rd stringers or JVers. Honestly, after you’re crushing somebody by a certain amount, it just stops being fun; its like playing chess against a 4-year-old, taking all of his pieces and spending the next 30 minutes chasing his king around the board.

17

I don’t really have a problem with the rule, and I’d be fine with it if it was amended the way Cheesesteak suggests. I really do hate it when leagues try to weaken their own competition, but there ought to be a mechanism to prevent coaches from being jerks.

18

What’s wrong with “deliberately running up the score” like the earlier coach did?

19

While it may be allowed (I’m not sure), I’ve never seen this happen. Granted, I can’t recall too many games won after the expiration of regulation time on a touchdown. Do you know of an example? Certainly, it doesn’t happen in OT.

20

Deliberately humiliating your opponent is not appropriate for low level amateur sports. It’s barely acceptable in professional sports.