Can someone explain why 100 points is such an extraordinary result? I did a google for “high school basketball results” and the 5th link has a list of results. Looking down the list, 100 point cumulative scores do not seem uncommon. If you take into account the 25 points scored in the first 3 minutes, to me it suggests that all they did was play a normal paced game or possibly even slower than normal paced.
I clicked on your link. None of the scores exceeded 100. In addition, no losing team scored 0 on that list.
Where are you seeing that scores of 100 are common?
ETA: I also saw only two scores where the difference between the two was 50, and no difference exceeded that. What point were you trying to make with this link?
He didn’t get fired for blowing out another team. He got fired because the school was embarrassed by the publicity. Covenant won another game 66-7 earlier this year and nobody lost their job because it wasn’t a round number and got to press.
Perhaps, or perhaps because in that game they might have adopted a situationally appropriate strategy of not pressing and looking for rapid transition baskets. It seems more likely that they took the air out of the ball in that game. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
I’m sorry, typo there: "it wasn’t a round number, and got no press, meaning no publicity. I’ve said repeatedly that if they were pressing late in the game, that was wrong.
I said cumulative scores as in if you add the scores of both teams up. the point of the link was that I don’t see any evidence that the point scoring was excessive or caused by anything other than just playing the game. They weren’t deliberately trying to keep the points down but they made no effort to score more than a normal game except in the first 3 minutes.
Put another way, if Moody can score 69 points against a team that doesn’t suck, what’s so weird about this team scoring 100 points against one that does?
Bill Laimbeer from the Detroit Pistons, perhaps.
Ah, I see. Your point is that if you gave every single possession of the game to one team, and thus took no time off the clock for the possessions of the opposition, that first team might score 100 points.
Okay. Not sure what relevance that has here, but sure, if it were a team of Ditkas playing against a team of mini-Vikings, they might score 100 to 0. Now pass another polish sausich down here.
What’s this “if” nonsense? They did score 100 to 0. Their opponents were that bad.
I was answering the hypothetical that one team had every single possession in a game. Poessession means when one team is in control of the ball. As explained earlier by someone with more patience than I have, basketball is a game of alternating possessions.
Shalmanese’s point was that there are games where the total score is around 100, so why should it be odd to see one team score 100. The problem there is that combined scores are the result of two teams’ total possessions during a game. We can presume that in the game under discussion, they did not change the rules, and maintained an alternating possession protocol. Thus, the score of 100 to 0 is the result of both teams total possessions, with time coming off the clock for all the losing team’s possessions as well.
None of this is really all that germane to the issue that one coach kept his foot on the throttle throughout the game with (in all likelihood) the intention of achieving a score of 100 to 0.
Some people asked for box scores. According to the winning coach, the box scores were 35-24-29-12. He says there were 4 three point baskets in the game–3 in the first quarter and 1 in the third. For those people who are maintaining that the Covenant team was nailing 3-point shots throughout the game, how do you explain a 12 point fourth quarter?
The Covenant coach claims that they played the full court press for 5 minutes and scored 25 points, then he backed off and started playing zones. Was he supposed to start the game by “going easy” on those poor Dallas Academy girls? I don’t think that it is believable that the Covenant girls ran a full court press in the 4th quarter. If they did, why did they only score 12 points?
As for the question of whether 100 points is a lot for a game, I think that Grinnell is a good team to look at. For those who aren’t familiar, they are a college (D-III) team who decided not to play defense and they average around 120 points per game. Of course, they’re opponents average 120 points per game, too. So if you have two teams running back and forth trying to score all the time what you get is 240 points in a game. This is against teams which are comparable in skill, by the way.
ETA: Hentor, we’re talking here about a team that didn’t manage to score a single point in a basketball game. Take a look at the second quarter. That’s 12 baskets in 8 minutes–one every 40 seconds. That really isn’t all that fast.
I think the parents are wrong on at least some fronts, but they could have taken some threes in the third quarter.
The coach admits they didn’t score any points for the last four minutes. Some posters have said the quarters are eight minutes long, which I believe matches my own experience.
Not really, though: Grinnell has better athletes (college vs. h.s.) and plays a game that is 20% longer, at 40 minutes vs. 32. In high school and in college you can have very wide ranges in scores.
It’s that they scored exactly 100 and barely scored any in the final quarter. It could happen, but :dubious: . It makes me think the goal was not to play well, nor to go all out, nor to play their best, but to score 100 points. Had they scored 118 to 0, I’d have fewer questions about the coach’s style.
There were 12 points scored in the fourth quarter because that is exactly when they reached their goal of 100 points.
Because that is when they reached their goal of 100 points.
Excellent point. The Covenant team approached the score that a run and gun, no defense college women’s team would score in 40 minutes of game time, while taking only 28 minutes to do it.
And about 1 every 30 seconds in the first and third. And that’s made shots too. We can assume that Covenant didn’t shoot 100% right? So we’re looking at a shot about every, what, 25 seconds?
Girls basketball has huge discrepancies in talent and coaching. In Michigan they have girls playoffs every year and I have noticed a lot of blowouts. 84 to 16 kind of slaughters. Every year they happen.
No, two teams can get that score in 40 minutes.
Yes, he should.
And nicely done.
I’m sorry, but I think your point eludes me. Yes, two college women’s teams could each score 100-120 in 40 minutes. I don’t disagree. But that is if they are playing a flat out aggressive style of offense and spending little time on defense, rather than a ball-control, defensively minded, clock management style of basketball (which is more commonly practiced in college).
Do you agree with the latter point?
So, it stands to reason that the Covenant team was playing a flat out aggressive style of offense throughout 28 minutes of the game, until they reached the 100-0 mark. And therein lies the problem.
Men’s teams, in fact, if we’re talking about Grinnell. Not only that, but Grinnell has a specific system in place where everyone plays equal minutes, basically every shot is a three-pointer, and practices are specifically geared toward a level of frenzied conditioning that will allow for an artificial inflation of the pace of the game via a 40 minute gambling press, no attention to ball security or shot selection or post play (or fatigue, or foul trouble, or the score, basically), and almost no negative consequences for bad shots, passes, failure to rebound, or bad defensive plays.
In other words, a spectacularly stupid example, since playing that way is exactly what we’re being told this girls’ team wasn’t doing.
The point was that when Grinnell plays with their godawful style they score 120 points per game and their opponents do, too. That is, when you are playing against a team which does not care or to or is not capable of playing defense you score a metric shit-ton of points. The teams that play Grinnell aren’t spending all their time conditioning to be able to play like crazed shot-monkeys, but they still rack up the points.
The losing team in the 100-0 blowout didn’t manage to score a single basket, including free throws. If the Covenant girls were racing back and forth up the court digging for every point you’d expect them to accidentally foul the other team a few times.
Seriously, these girls were so far outmatched they didn’t manage to score a single point, and you’re saying the other team was running up the score? When both teams are competitive it isn’t at all unusual for the combined score to be over 100. Do you have any reason to think that the Dallas Academy girls were in control of the ball for half of the game time? Even if there’s no shot clock, you can’t expect a basketball team to just stand at the end of the court passing the ball around in a circle and not shooting when they have a chance. What kind of box scores would you find acceptable in this situation? 35-0-0-0?
As for whether they played all out until they scored 100 points, this seems to be based on the account of a parent, who may or may not have been at the game.
So the crowd and an assistant coach were cheering for the team? The horror! I suppose the assistant coach should have been scolding the girls. Renee Peloza claims that they should have backed off. Ok, why did it take 4 minutes to score 12 points in the 4th quarter? One of the articles says that the Covenant girls turned the game into a lay-up drill, taking the ball from the hapless Academy players and rushing down the court. If this is so, why is the score so low?
Finally, I am interested in this idea that the Covenant team stopped playing with 4 minutes left in the last quarter. If they were just stealing the ball and then making layups, why did it take them 4 minutes to score 6 times? (4, if you believe the woman about the 3-point shots)