It’s not the losing coach who should be embarrassed, and he knows it; he said nobody should feel sorry for his team.
No, because quitting when you are losing is being a poor sport–it’s “Now that I am losing, I will take my ball and go home. I only want to play if I win”. It needs to be the winning team that offers the other team the option.
Right. I’d reckon the losing team did learn something this day, about dignity and fulfilling commitments.
The winning team lost, and not only in hurting their preparation for better competition.
I coach middle school JV basketball - teams within the district are of wildly different talent levels.
This weekend, we played a team that I expected to be better than they were. We got up about 15-0 in the 1st quarter. I called off the zone trapping we do on defense. Started playing with lineups in the 2nd quarter, though I didn’t sit starters, because we only get 6 games all year. Went to half at about 20-1 and agreed to a running clock. In the third, we told our kids to stop pushing it in transition for fast break layups and to get it to a guard and work on our offense. Midway through the quarter we left our base defense and threw them into man to man for the first time this year (which was annoying, because we had a second, high intensity zone that I wanted to work on, but would have made the game even worse). By the fourth quarter, I told them that the only ways to score was by getting the ball to the backdoor cutter that they always ignore, and started benching kids who shot without looking to get the ball where it needed to be.
There are ways to avoid rubbing it in while still developing your players.
My understanding is that the coach doesn’t get to schedule the games, and is playing whoever is up next on the schedule before “the games that count” start. At least, that how I remember basketball being played.
The other counter is that it could be that this was the only team the coach could schedule for whatever reason.
If the coach has his pick of teams to play and he chose this one, then yes that’s bad coaching but not bad game-time coaching. If the coach didn’t have a choice in who the team was playing (which was my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong), then no bad coaching at all.
The mercy rule exists in HS sports by us, so this could never happen here. That said, I can’t imagine the winning team not having all of their time outs left after the first half.
Would it truly be an affront to AAU Sports for a coach to call a time out, approach the other coach and say,
“Hey. I’d like to offer you the opportunity to forfeit at this point. Your team is down by 75 points and you’ve only scored 2. We can go on if you like, but I’m offering you and your girls a way out.”
The ref then stops the game.
The other thing is, the experienced coach wasn’t even there. After halftime, it was his 19 year old nephew running the show because he’d driven off to scout how other teams in their conference/league were playing.
My feeling is, fine if you want to scout the other teams because this game is over, so be it. Just make sure you offer the other team a chance to forfeit before you back your Buick out of your parking space.
Where I coach, the basketball coach has some choice for pre-season games.
And any coach should be aware of the relative abilities of other teams and incoming/graduating players.
No. That’s what he did during the first game of his suspension following this embarrassment.
Fired?
You would want a man to lose his means of supporting himself and his family because he doesn’t know something that you think he should know?
Wow.
Basketball is one of the easier team sports to “control” when you are playing an overmatched opponent. When I coached youth basketball we found ourselves on both sides of this coin. When we were the better team I had many different tactics for slowing down the game while still letting my team practice legitimate skills at 100% effort. “Scrimmage mode” kicked in whenever we got up by 20 points. There were several layers of scrimmage mode, some I could implement by hand signals while in other cases I would call timeout to explain the changes to my team. Some examples are:
- stop full court defense
- rotate in players who were not starters
- put players in positions they were not used to playing
- must complete 5 or more passes before attempting a shot
- play zone defense and do not guard out side the lane
- big men shoot only outside shots, outside shooters can only shoot in the lane
- only certain players can shoot (generally the worst shooters on the team)
In every case the change(s) challenged my players to practice skills they needed to improve while slowing down our scoring and opening up avenues for the opponent to score. No need to back off the individual effort. Done right, the opposing players may not even know you are controlling the game. The other coach, however, usually picks up on it pretty quickly. On many occasions an opposing coaches took me aside after a game and thanked me.
Yep, it is incredibly unfair to an athelete to say “Play less than your best”. Talent is not an accelerator and it’s not a switch. It is incredibly difficult to back off and not pick up bad habits, lose concentration and get frustrated. I’ve also been a part of instances where the better team lost because they backed off on their effort after building a big lead and couldn’t switch it back on when necessary. Keep the effort at 100%, but continue to impose disadvantages on your team until the game balances out.
The vast majority of high school coaches are paid a stipend, not a full salary.
There may be a few demented places that offer full time positions.
‘Sportsman like conduct’, is changing it’s meaning, in all sports. Where sports were once a means to building good character it is now becoming a lesson in winning at all costs, and crushing your ‘enemy’, I think. So sad to see.
And it’s not just coaches, take a look at the parents, yikes!
No - see Darth Sensitive and Doctor Jackson’s posts. I’m one of those oddballs that watches a lot of women’s basketball ( finally returning to the NBA as well, now that the Warriors are entertaining again ), albeit not usually at the sub-college level. There are all sorts of ways to put breaks on a runaway victory without telling your players to intentionally miss shots or manufacture turnovers.
It’s not that a team can’t get something out of playing an over-matched opponent. It’s that this guy’s argument rings hollow. Pressing with your starters for a entire half against this lowly of a team isn’t going to teach them much - they presumably couldn’t beat the press at all. You’ll undoubtedly get more from using the time to develop your bench. No, this was over-aggressive and over-competitive coaching. His suspension ( or at least some sort of mild administrative slap on the wrist ) seems warranted.
This varies with culture, and different games might have very different expectations. In chess, for instance, high-level matches are almost always won via concession: Once a player realizes they’re so far behind that they can’t catch up, they concede. It’s considered extremely poor form to drag a game out to its bitter end, after the ending has become certain. It would likewise be poor form for the player who’s ahead to ask “Would you like to concede?”, as that would be gloating: The concession is initiated by the loser.
I think that this would be the ideal solution. You are a good man.
Why not just let the inferior team field a sixth player? Better practice all around, no?
Would that rule deviation be too extreme to consider? Would such a handicap itself be too humiliating?
I’m going to go against the grain here: …
Life is a winner-take-all sport. Nobody in business goes easy on the competition. Neither in politics, from local to international. In the broad view, school at all levels is merely prep for life at all levels.
In this specific case the winning coach was considering only his /her own interests. And that of their team in the league standings and in prep for the eventual playoffs they expect to participate in.
Which is all 100% correct given the incentive structure and the rules structure. Any other considerations are irrelevant.
If people don’t like this, the remedy, if there is to be one, is to change the nature of non-sports competition (and sport league finals) to permit “good sportsmanship” to count for something. And to adjust the in-game rules so there are rewards for “good sportsmanship”, and penalties / prohibitions against “bad sportsmanship”.
FWIW, the NFL has a penalty called “unsportsmanlike conduct” with real in-game adverse consequences for players and teams violating it. To be sure, that penalty isn’t a panacea for all that ails the NFL. But it provides a concrete example which shows us the concept is not utterly without merit or practicability.
You can’t change the rules because of a lopsided score unless the rules say that you can. In high school basketball (at least in California, anyway), the only thing that can be done is to have a running clock during the fourth quarter.
High school basketball has “unsportsmanlike” rules as well, but it deals with things like taunting opponents or arguing with officials.
In California, coaches need teachers’ credentials. I don’t think any school has a coach whose sole job is “basketball coach.”
In the NFL punching out your wife, killing your pets, killing someone in a car crash are all acceptable, perhaps a short suspension which, should you appeal can/will be quietly undone.
Unsportsmanlike like conduct has lost it’s meaning completely. I honestly don’t see how they avoid choking on the words, to be honest.
Sports have lost the concept of sportsman like conduct entirely, so far as I can see. It’s been eclipsed by winning is everything, at all costs, the other team is an ‘enemy’ to be ‘crushed’. It’s on display right here in this thread!
There are only so many ways you can disguise a clear mismatch. I could understand a greater accusation of unsportsmanlike, if they were taunting and gloating mid-play, or afterwards.
Besides that, this isn’t just a “problem” that is fixed by punishing the one coach. It’s difficult to have any real semblance of a competition, when a team can only manage two points. The amount you’d have to handicap yourself to make that even remotely competitive, while still being believable, would make the entire concept of competition pointless. You might as well stage the entire thing, or just turn it into practice/drills, as someone mentioned.
From the article:
“There’s a fine line between an acceptable display of dominance and going overboard.”
This seems completely arbitrary to me, and just opens to the door to further plays on interpretation. If anything, you need something very clear and objective, like a set amount of points differential to signal a mercy call, or something. I get that they are trying to protect mediocrity, but there are also lessons to be learned.