That really is the crux: the suspension. I'm just never going to see any logic in that.....it IS absurd.
You are correct if the coach is hired for the sole purpose of winning. However, if you ask any school board member (I am on one) or any administrator, he or she will tell you that they don't want only a coach who wins but one who teaches the kids some good lessons about life. And, for many of us, sportsmanship is one of those lessons.
I never said there was a benefit to win by that margin. What I have said is teams need to play. When the coach stops his defensive attack and puts subs in for the entire second half, there isn't a lot more he can do. Perhaps his entire team was just that much better. Do you suggest they take a nap on the floor? That is what would embarrass me.Originally posted by preacherfan,
Actually, I thought of Randle and his mother when I saw this thread. My only comment in relation to that situation is to say that it apparently worked in that case but I don't think his mom should be writing parenting books for other parents!
As for what he should have done, it is hard to say not having seen the game and the aricle gave few details. I can venture a few ideas....for example, why not set up plays for the worse shooter on the team? The team could do some rebounding drills, etc.
Bottomline is that the coach could use some creativity to make the game at least beneficial to even his own team.
I simply see NO benefit to just crushing a team by that margin.
Except that he absolutely, positively, undoubtedly WAS punished for exactly that even if you can't see it. How can you "go easy on someone" while also having your team play as hard as they can? You can't. He had his bench in for the entire second half, no? That's enough in my eyes. I'm not "calling off the dogs" in the first half, no matter the lead. That's just a poor lesson to teach my team, and in itself shows disrespect for your opponent. Do they want you to play them as if they are incapable losers? I hope not.
I was going to make that point. The winning team scored an average of 4 1/2 points per minute of the game. With a 30 second shot clock, that is still astoundingly high.
Based on my numbers in my other post, I am going to say, "Don't take a nap. Just play a zone."Originally posted by BigBlueFanGA:
I never said there was a benefit to win by that margin. What I have said is teams need to play. When the coach stops his defensive attack and puts subs in for the entire second half, there isn't a lot more he can do. Perhaps his entire team was just that much better. Do you suggest they take a nap on the floor? That is what would embarrass me.Originally posted by preacherfan,
Actually, I thought of Randle and his mother when I saw this thread. My only comment in relation to that situation is to say that it apparently worked in that case but I don't think his mom should be writing parenting books for other parents!
As for what he should have done, it is hard to say not having seen the game and the aricle gave few details. I can venture a few ideas....for example, why not set up plays for the worse shooter on the team? The team could do some rebounding drills, etc.
Bottomline is that the coach could use some creativity to make the game at least beneficial to even his own team.
I simply see NO benefit to just crushing a team by that margin.
I never said this particular school had to force kids to play. I said *some* schools have this issue...I used it to make a point that the playing field (or court, as it were) is not always level. It is sad that a school of 3000 people can't find enough girls to play that could get within...I don't know...50 points?
Again..absurd. He was absolutely, positively, undoubtedly NOT punished for having his team play hard for an entire game, and characterizing it as that is frankly ridiculous. Did his team do that? Yes. Was that why he got in trouble? No. Otherwise he would have been punished in the handful of prior games where his team won by 70 points. Moreover, if he were merely getting punished "for having his team play hard for an entire game", then he'd get punished for doing so even when his team only managed to win by a single point. That is plainly not the case. I never said when they should have called off the dogs... I don't know when the game got completely out of hand. But I think they probably could have done a better job of it at least in the second half.
I was at a playoff game a few years ago in which a large school only had 6 players. When I asked why I was told that between suspensions, no-shows and pregnancies, they were barely able to field a team. Large schools often have large problems!
The ones I put in bold above suggest to me that those coaches did what some of us are suggesting...called off the dogs. If you win 48-3 or 59-7, you could obviously have scored a lot more points if you wanted.
Yep, I'd love every second of it and I bet there wouldn't be to many on here complaining about it either.
That is completely beside the point. That notion of "I can't find anything positive about it, so let's ban it" is an unmatched example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.. I mean, if we do the strictly utilitarian pro/con thing with various items, many could attempt to rationalize banning alcohol, tobacco, guns, cars that go above 70 mph, candy/soda/dessert, not to mention media that depicts any of these things.
Where is the line at which the winning kids are still learning lessons of "character"? If playing subs the second half is insufficient, then is it pressing only up 30? 20? 10? where is the character line?! I must know.
I think the line is like that old definition of pornography: a person should know it when they see it.
I Don't disagree. It's tacky and not particularly helpful. I just don't think anybody should be suspended. Write a stern letter if you want to distance your organization from it. And more importantly I wish this generation would stop acting like all kids are these little daisies that can be permanently destroyed by any trivial thing. It turns into a self fulfilling prophecy eventually. They need to deal with some adversity, and if getting crushed in a basketball game or even going through a bad losing season is going to ruin your kid for good, you did something wrong.
Funny, I thought it was a marvelous troll post. Also, I would love it if any candidate says "Lol!" Bonus points for putting it on official campaign materials.Originally posted by true55:
This is the first response I've seen that makes any sense whatsoever!!!!!!!!
i wuould kick his rear if that was my kid. i raised winners not losers. as my man vitale says, "he is a winner with a winners mentality." parents need to raise winners and not kids who should have quit baseball because they are that bad. maybe your kid needs to play badminton
