The idea that anyone in either side should be disciplined or punished or fired is ludicrous.
Fortunately in Australia most popular sports don’t lend themselves to going easy on an inferior opponent without looking like you are belittling them, so the whole disapproval of “running up the score” just doesn’t exist. I have been on both sides of the equation as both a player and a coach and people just live with it.
Yes, graciously conceding defeat when it’s appropriate to do so is something children should be taught. Faking a game is not so clearly a better value.
Having played Basketball, ordering the team to ONLY shoot threes is something you do when you are trying to limit scoring. Getting a regular 2-pointer is only like a 50% average - getting a three pointer is much lower percentage. Usually, you’ll be scoring much less if you’re taking much harder shots.
The fact that the girl got 8 out of 9 says she is either some kind of basketball savant that is getting drafted into the WNBA next year, or more likely, the losing team had stopped blocking at all and that’s the percentage she would have made if there was nobody else on the floor.
To clarify, I wasn’t referencing anyone’s specific argument in the thread. I referenced the authors ideas, because theirs seemed particularly poor to me, and nothing more than rhetoric. I actually liked some of the examples here by people who coach teams.
In answer to your question(s), I can only go by what I’ve read, and there was a claim that both coaches agreed to somewhat of a “practice” game (at least in the first half), in order to prep the stronger team for regional play. I don’t think they expected a competitive game, since the focus was on regionals, but I do think they achieved their goal of developing their play. The way I see it, it was a clumsily approached practice session with a score-- but you certainly do develop with practice.
Ultimately, I think the entire score thing is a distraction. I think you’ve hinted at what should be focused on, when you insinuate that the stronger team didn’t improve from this. The problem isn’t the score that the media has lapped up, the problem is the grossly unbalanced competition among the league. ~160-2 made headlines, but losing by 50, 60, 90 points is also demoralizing and not very competitive. In most competitive sports, rules are introduced which better balance the game (or desired entertainment value), or you have a separation of JV and Varsity, for example, but that’s where the focus should be in this case. Suspending the coach doesn’t help anything, because it doesn’t address the talent gap.
Of course, there is also the fact that it’s easier to lower a bridge, than to raise a river. If the rules are as balanced as they can be, the hard truth dictates that the lesser teams simply have to improve. This is too often ignored, because we choose to associate shame with defeat, instead of the very real building block that comes with losing, or rather, the room to grow (to lend a positive spin). Without that very obvious and realistic expectation, there cannot be legitimate competition.
(I numbered bullets to match reply)
I think what you two are misssing is the point of junior level competition. Until one is playing/coaching at a major college level or above there are only 5 objectives in any sport:
A) have fun
B) play hard
C) develop skills so the player can progress to the next level (if they wish)
D) improve
E) good sportsmanship
You’ll notice that winning, by any amount, is not on the list. It’s all about developing players.
The point of 3, 5 and 6 that you object to are directly related to all of the objectives. Specifically:
3 -put players in positions they were not used to playing - this not only helps the players develop new skills, but also to gain a better understading of the game overall. The better I know the other positions, the better I can anticipate their next move and be in position to take advantage. The more I understand the game, the more fun it becomes. Does one need to be an experienced point guard to be an outstanding center? No. Does having experience at point guard help them become an outstanding center? Absolutely.
5 - play zone defense and do not guard out side the lane - there are times when playing good teams that are significantly taller than yours where you would emply this type defense to force them to shoot outside. Why not practice that when you have a chance?
6 - big men shoot only outside shots, outside shooters can only shoot in the lane - I cannot believe you objected to this one. Do you understand how much value there is in a big man who can consistantly nail a jumper, or a little man who can drive the lane? Pretty much the only time they can work on these skills in a live game is when playing an overmatched team.
There is very little skill development or team improvement to be had in crushing a clearly overmatched team. If I, as coach, can accomplish all 4 goals for my players AND make the game a little closer, that’s a win/win.
That’s the in-game object. That’s not the reason you decide to play the game at all.
Right. Doctor Jackson just above breaks out five components of recreational games. Which ones were well-served by this encounter?
I was specifically discussing how the authors ideas and the suspension of the coach, don’t address the issue at hand. Winning and high scores have less to do with my point.
To introduce an anecdote, I played sports in HS (mainly soccer, and a few others), and we had a losing team (by record). The fun, for me, came from the social aspect of the game with my peers-- not just winning or the perception of being better than we actually were. We knew quite clearly if the opposing team was good or not, especially since most teams had a known history. Expected wins weren’t as sweet as the ones we had to scrape for, because there wasn’t a perception of triumph over adversity. Losses hurt, but there existed a humility to them, and we were somewhat realistic enough to ultimately accept disappointment and even laugh (or poke fun) at each other when they happened. We also pointed fingers, quarreled, and got on each other more than enough times. We knew we had individual talent, but lacked the cohesive play and discipline to compete with the highest teams.
And here is where perception kicks in. The last thing we wanted, was for a team to go easy on us during game time, because doing so didn’t truly help us. We were competitive, mentally, watched professional sports, and we’d prefer they set the bar, so that we could properly gauge the level of talent, thus giving us a goal to work towards. If we later adapted and scored one extra point, it was because we did the work necessary to earn it, and the accomplishment was now ours to own. There is so much more depth involved, than what can be reflected in a simple score, and as I’ve voiced previously, the score is a distraction and mostly serves as material for headlines and concerned adults. As you’ve stated, winning, by any amount, is not on the list. Both our ideas are expressing a similar concept, and acknowledge that winning isn’t everything [within reason]-- I just expand that to include both groups of participants.
If we wanted to improve, the primary place to do so was during practice, and in our specific case, the unofficial practice. That would mean going to the local field on weekends, instead of the mall, and committing our free time to being not only better players, but a better team. Responsibility was key. Because in all honesty, the chief component of getting better, and what separates average players from better ones, is the willingness to put in the time. That time -and I emphasize- wasn’t something another team could offer us, it was something we had to want badly enough.
On that note, I agree with you in principle. However, you can have all five of the points you’ve shared, and still have a lopsided score (there were many more than this). The two aren’t mutually exclusive, unless the score, itself, has direct bearing on the 5 takeaways you’ve listed (with the last being the most debatable). If they do, a reevaluation is in order, because such a player is internalizing it, more than they are learning from it. It can be a tough lesson to learn at that age, but HS is also the best place to learn it. I haven’t found interviews/comments from the actual players on both teams, to understand their perspective, so I’d rather not assume that a score was the final representation of what lessons they took from the game (or any other game on their record).
It looks like that team has gone through a lot of coaches throughout the years. I’m guessing none of them know what there doing, or care. I did notice a coach back in the mid 2000’s who went 9-9 though.Maybe they should bring that guy back.
That girl who scored the 2 points for the losing team should get a pro contract.
She broke through that D? Girl got game!
A really good movie on Netflix right now is a movie about girls basketball. Sam Rockwell is a loser who takes over as the coach of a struggling team. It’s just kind of funny because he has to deal with all sorts of girl problems. I have to wonder if that’s why it’s tough to find a good coach in girls basketball. The movie is called The Winning Season. I don’t even know why I watched this but it was really good.
You are confusing California high school varsity girls’ basketball with “junior level competition”. The better you look, the more likely you’ll get a scholarship from a school with a remote chance of winning the NCAA Division I championship, which is pretty much what you need to make it into the WNBA. Of course, this assumes that anybody on the team that sparked this thread has any standouts, which I doubt (at least none were mentioned).
I know this has been said already, but a definition of “enough of a lead” needs to be identified. I am familiar enough with how California’s state playoff system works to know that “Team A beat Team X by 40, and Team B beat them by only 25, so A gets a home game and B gets to travel hundreds of miles” is possible.
Besides - it’s hard to “play hard”, “develop skillls”, or “improve”, much less all three, without some level of running up the score at some point.
Oh, and you also forgot:
(F) safety - this tends to be the #1 concern in high school sports at levels other than gateways to professional or major collegiate level. Case in point: the league that includes the school that I attended implemented a “no metal bats” rule in baseball after a pitcher was nearly killed when hit in the head by a ball hit from a metal bat.
That makes my point exactly. The more developed the player, the better chance to move on (if they want). How many team wins and by how many points matters not at all.
I would argue, if point differential is a tiebreaker at the high school level, that the system is broken. It is serving coaches, not kids.
Some level of “bad beats”, even when trying to control the game, is unavoidable. A 160 point spread is always avoidable, and counterproductive to all involved (except egotistical coaches and parents)
You’re right, I did. Making sports as safe as possible should be parmount. No one can eliminate sports injuries, but every coach should minimize the chances and maximize the response.
Enough of a lead that no girls’ HS varsity team will ever lose a game they have led by this margin, even if they handicap themselves to the extreme of not scoring at all from that point on. Based on extensive research and advanced calculations, I put that at 52 points. 
Simple! Points above the “enough” margin are deducted. 
There was another team that beat them by 100 points too. I guess I have to give these girls some credit for at least showing up.
Lol, now that’s just brutal.
But I’d show up to watch.
I’ve never in my life heard of slowing down scoring by only chucking up threes. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, it’s just not something I’ve ever heard. It sure doesn’t LOOK like you are taking it easy by draining threes all day. Plus, kids today grew up with the 3 point line. It’s not as low of a percentage shot as it used to be.
Agreed. I played semi-competitive sport, mostly touch footy… having the other team mucking about deliberately not trying would be way worse than having them play properly and being thumped. Better outclassed than belittled.
I don’t care for any sports anywhere, they just seem a waste of time; but I’ve never once heard in Britain of teams or individuals going easy on opponents if they are losing.
Vae Victis.
“Running up the score” is one of those almost purely US concepts that I don’t quite get, because it’s even used if pro sports, even full contact ones like American Football where you hear former coaches and players, and presneters saying the other team should slow down. I agree with no-fake-punt or no-cuadruple-reverses-halfback-pass, but bring it on.
But that’s pro.
In high school level games there’s only so much you can do to not keep scoring that doesn’t look like tauning or disrepsct. Teens (I teach high school) would rather get creamed than being made fun of. You play your reserves, you go a bit slower, don’t go for crazy no-look-alley-oop, but you keep playing.
In my high school (where I studied and teach now) we’ve always had great football (soccer) and basketball teams in the three age groups. Not being at least 4th is an embarassment. I remember two games.
Once our junior/senior football team was going to play a much worse school and only 8 players came. We had the goalie play midfield, one of the reserve defenders play forward and two were even sphomores. We still won 8-1. If they had slowed down even more tan they had it would’ve been waaaaaay more disrespectful.
Another time, in a pre-season game we palying basketball against our rival school. They kicked our asses big time, they never stopped playing 100% because they wanted to get to 100. They won something like 98-37. In the locker room nobody was saying “running up the score” they were pissed off at how badly they had played. They other team could’ve slowed down, but nobody in the history of our league would’ve accused them of anyhting, especially siince both are top-notch schools.
The “dick” team in this story is clearly superior to all the league, they always win by a big margin. You can’t play every single game at 75%.
Could they have tried harder to not score that much? Sure, butonly so much.