I sat on the bench for 3 whole years for a Little League football coach whose only concern was winning. Our team would, with very few exceptions, win every game by an extremely wide margin (usually around 40-50 points, with the opposing teams almost never scoring). It still hurts me to this day that a) the coach never played me and the other kids with less athletic ability, and b) my parents never stood up for me and confronted the coach.
That said, for non-professional sports, I do agree with MrDribble:
[QUOTE=MrDribble]
I think that all sports should have an honourable “throw in the towel” option - the onus should be on the hopelessly outclassed team to do the surrendering, not the victors.
[/QUOTE]
“Throwing in the towel” presumes that the W/L outcome is of paramount importance–that once this is not in doubt, neither side should have any interest in continuing. But if the experience itself is worth something, perhaps the main thing, why not try to make the experience more meaningful for both sides? Make it harder for the stronger side–not “slowing down,” not “going easy,” but giving them a bit of actual challenge. At the same time, make it possible for the weaker side to do something other than watching their opponents control everything around them.
If what is important is playing the game, then consider ditching the school-based team rigidity. Just reshuffle the lineups to even out the talent and let all of the good players work with the bad players.
Someone is going to say something about loyalty and team coherence. What’s more important when kids play a game? To have fun or to reinforce tribal loyalties? Maybe sports shouldn’t be teaching kids that their opponents are their enemies.
Wins and points = exposure. That’s what really matters.
It’s not an “official tiebreaker”, but the committee that decides how to seed the teams without seeing most of them play has to use something to do it. They’re not going to assign them randomly or even geographically, as the top four from each sectional advance to the main state tournament and they can’t risk putting the top two teams against each other before the semi-finals.
Add Michigan’s loss at home to Appalachian State in 2007.
It’s usually FCS (I-AA), not Division II, teams that are involved, as you can’t count a win against a Division II team towards being bowl-eligible, but you can count one FCS win if that school has given out at least 90% of its allowed scholarships over the past two years.
Also, most of these schools realize they’re going to get blown out, so the final score might as well be reported as, “Alabama 41, Florida Atlantic $1 million towards keeping its other sports running.” (All Division I schools must have at least 14 sports, and I doubt there are any where fewer than 10 lose money.) This is one reason why you rarely see an FBS-vs-FCS game at the FCS team’s stadium. (And it’s not just FCS teams that do this; back in 1980 or so, Cal had a game at Michigan that was pretty much just for the payday.)
It’s the same here in New Zealand as well. Yes it sucks to lose by 90+ points, but everyone turned up to play next week and none of us suffered any long term damage from it. Winning by 90+ isn’t that much fun though, pretty early on it’s clear the other team has no chance and there’s no real satisfaction in trouncing a team that’s totally outclassed.
Exactly. Clearly this school has no business playing teams on the level of the team that just waxed their ass 161-2. Find a new league or disband the program.
BTW, how embarrassed are those 4 teams that lost to them?
Personally, I feel the girls who lost probably could care less about it. This has probably made them semi celebritys. I bet they are enjoying every minute of the attention. It’s the people who are making to big of a deal over this that might make them feel self consious.
I gotta disagree (surprise!). I can give numerous examples in any given sport where a high school kid who was offered a major college scholarship (or went straight to the pros) did so from a school team that absolutely sucked. In fact, if winning were even a minor consideration then no football player from my high school would have been offered a college scholarship from about 1976-2000.
College and pro scouts look at players, not teams.
Being part of a team is a key part of the experience. It’s not about tribalism or opponents as enemies, it’s about the relationships on your team, the experience of working with others over an extended period, with ups and downs along the way. Very life-applicable, though less so if your team is uniformly dominant or helpless.
Life is not just business or politics. Were it so, you would be absolutely correct.
However, since there is much more to life than just politics or business (like respect, honesty, moral values), teaching that is is just and right to stomp on those who are weaker than you just because you can is an absolutely horrid lesson to teach. It is, in fact, disgusting.
Various people in this thread have said something along the lines of “we played against this team that was better than us… but if they hadn’t been trying their hardest it would have been an insult”. I have two responses to that:
(1) There’s a difference between “better than” and “comically ridiculously better than”. You don’t end up with a basketball score of 161-2 because one team is “better than” the other team. That’s not like 6-0 or 7-0 in soccer (which I suspect are at the outer limits of what have happened in English Premiere league matches). That’s like 18-0 in soccer or something.
(2) Depending on your definition of “trying”, it’s certainly possible to handicap yourself and still try hard. I used to play racquetball with some guys who were WAY worse than I was. If we played full out the score would be 15-1 or something. So I would play left-handed. But once I was playing left-handed I went “full out”, running as hard as I could, etc., and the games were at least decent. I don’t see how that was in any way insulting to them.
I would not do that. I played soccer and baseball until my sophomore year in high school.* Some years I was on a good team and some a bad team and I had fun even when I was on a losing team. If there are enough girls to make a team who want to play let 'em play. Even if you’re not winning you’re still out with your friends playing a sport you like to play.
*Cars and girls became more of a priority.
