Was 113-point game bad sportsmanship?

CaptainP · Post by **CaptainP** » February 2, 2006 11:18 pm

It was bad sportsmanship. Period.

When Kobe Bryant scored 81 points in an NBA game last week, he did it because he was helping his team to a come-from-behind win, and he was the only Laker who was playing well that night.

This was a game that was won by over 100 points. Why would the star players still be in the game in the second half? She already had 59 points at halftime!!! Because the coach wanted to run up the score and embarrass the opponent? Maybe, but most likely because he wanted the girl to have a shot at that record.

The problem in trying to get the record for his player is that he didn't take anyone else into consideration. They weren't playing basketball...they were just planting her under the hoop, and she was waiting for long passes with no defense. That's not basketball, that's poor sportsmanship, against a clearly inferior opponant. She didn't even try to play defense.

She is a good player, she scored 39 against the #1 team in the nation! There's no need for this.

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » February 2, 2006 11:23 pm

SharkOnLand wrote:I guess the point I'm trying to make is the other team just giving up is a bigger disgrace than a greedy player (or coach) going for a record.

That may be the case, but when it's teenage girls' pride that is being bruised and battered by one opposing player, it's just simply another matter altogether. Teenage girls don't handle embarassment and disappointment like boys... they get hurt, scared and ashamed. That game could have bruised their confidence and ruined their interest in the game for a long time. I hope not, but it could have. I coached against a lot of arrogant, egocentric men that wouldn't hesitate to run up a score or let their star player break some kind of record... rarely would I see a female coach do that. Usually, a female coach is in better touch with her players... naturally. I don't doubt this guy didn't have a clue what true sports etiquette is and he just did what he wanted for his ego and notoriety.

Demerara · Post by **Demerara** » February 2, 2006 11:39 pm

No excuse for this. You don't leave your star players in and keep running up the score. If I was on that winning team (which would be difficult, because I'm not a teenage girl

), I think I'd be even more embarrassed than the players on the losing team.

And really, what kind of record does she hold? A lot of those points came against a totally overmatched opponent; she might as well have been shooting hoops alone in the gym for an hour. I give the other team a lot of credit for restraining themselves from taking a cheap shot at break her legs.

Some day, somewhere, the tables will be turned and the coach and/or his star player will be on the opposite end of a crushing defeat.

SharkOnLand · Post by **SharkOnLand** » February 2, 2006 11:46 pm

I guess I see both sides of it. I'm no expert on the female psyche (my wife can attest to that), so I don't know what was going through their heads.

Quitting is terrible. Arrogance/greed/whatver you want to call it, is also terrible. The losing coach comparing her own team to the handicapped is appalling.

This is a lose/lose either way, as I see it.

CaptainP · Post by **CaptainP** » February 2, 2006 11:51 pm

If I were one of the girls on the losing team, I would've waited until she had 98 points, then, when she was going up for her layup to get to 100, I would've fouled her so hard that the coach hurt.

mings · Post by **mings** » February 3, 2006 9:38 am

Yes. I don't think Rutgers has any doubt as to the ball-hog mentality that they're getting.

As a coach, this disgusts me. Its a TEAM. There's nothing else to it.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » February 3, 2006 9:45 am

CaptainP wrote:If I were one of the girls on the losing team, I would've waited until she had 98 points, then, when she was going up for her layup to get to 100, I would've fouled her so hard that the coach hurt.

amazing what happens when you go up for a layup and your legs get taken out from under you on the way down..

mings · Post by **mings** » February 3, 2006 9:48 am

CaptainP wrote:If I were one of the girls on the losing team, I would've waited until she had 98 points, then, when she was going up for her layup to get to 100, I would've fouled her so hard that the coach hurt.

Why wait? Why don't you just cock back and punch her a few times while she shoots a jumper? That's a better SportsCenter highlight. Or maybe you can pick up a chair from the bench and go ECW style on her.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » February 3, 2006 9:50 am

mings wrote:
CaptainP wrote:If I were one of the girls on the losing team, I would've waited until she had 98 points, then, when she was going up for her layup to get to 100, I would've fouled her so hard that the coach hurt.
Why wait? Why don't you just cock back and punch her a few times while she shoots a jumper? That's a better SportsCenter highlight. Or maybe you can pick up a chair from the bench and go Bobby Knight-style on her.

There.. fixed it.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 3, 2006 9:51 am

Life is tough. Almost every aspect of life is competitive. You're not doing these kids any service by playing down to their level. They need to be shown that in life, just as in that game, if you go out and give a half-assed effort, you're gonna get trampled on by those who try harder. To bring the level of play down, you're teaching them that they don't have to try to excel, because those around them will take it easy on them. Sounds like a good way to prepare them for a life on welfare.

mings · Post by **mings** » February 3, 2006 9:51 am

RinglingRingling wrote:
mings wrote:
CaptainP wrote:If I were one of the girls on the losing team, I would've waited until she had 98 points, then, when she was going up for her layup to get to 100, I would've fouled her so hard that the coach hurt.
Why wait? Why don't you just cock back and punch her a few times while she shoots a jumper? That's a better SportsCenter highlight. Or maybe you can pick up a chair from the bench and go Bobby Knight-style on her.
There.. fixed it.

Word. Gracias

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » February 3, 2006 9:53 am

SharkOnLand wrote:
z-man wrote:
sonofabeach wrote:Here's how it works
It is the offense's job to score.
It is the defense's job to stop them

It's hard to tell players they can play but not to score.
Bullsh*t!
There is no excuse for that!

If the score is 137 -125, sure score as much as you can.
But 137 - 32? Get the starters out.
Agreed, that you do not tell players not to score, but to score 113 against a competely overmatched opponent is just bad sportsmanship in my book!
They stopped playing defense, though. Somebody was going to score, why not go for the record?

The article says they stopped playing defense in the second half, the score was 74-11 at halftime so even if they had kept playing defense what are the odds they would have been able to come back and make the game close? If they have a 30 second clock in high school basketball the coach of the winning team could have told his players to hold the ball for 25 or more of those seconds every possession to keep the score down.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » February 3, 2006 9:55 am

rednekkPH wrote:Life is tough. Almost every aspect of life is competitive. You're not doing these kids any service by playing down to their level. They need to be shown that in life, just as in that game, if you go out and give a half-assed effort, you're gonna get trampled on by those who try harder. To bring the level of play down, you're teaching them that they don't have to try to excel, because those around them will take it easy on them. Sounds like a good way to prepare them for a life on welfare.

I am thinking it would have been better to just say, "$crew this, they can have this game" after half-time. "Know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em" comes to mind.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » February 3, 2006 10:00 am

rednekkPH wrote:To bring the level of play down, you're teaching them that they don't have to try to excel, because those around them will take it easy on them. Sounds like a good way to prepare them for a life on welfare.

Or a union job.

that's a joke

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 3, 2006 10:06 am

LIPH wrote:
rednekkPH wrote:To bring the level of play down, you're teaching them that they don't have to try to excel, because those around them will take it easy on them. Sounds like a good way to prepare them for a life on welfare.
Or a union job. that's a joke

Besides the level of pay, is there a difference?

mings · Post by **mings** » February 3, 2006 10:09 am

rednekkPH wrote:Life is tough. Almost every aspect of life is competitive. You're not doing these kids any service by playing down to their level. They need to be shown that in life, just as in that game, if you go out and give a half-assed effort, you're gonna get trampled on by those who try harder. To bring the level of play down, you're teaching them that they don't have to try to excel, because those around them will take it easy on them. Sounds like a good way to prepare them for a life on welfare.

I dont care about the losing team's feelings. There's always a winner and always a loser and if anyone ever says otherwise - that's crap. What I don't like about this is that there was no team involvement. Put in your younger players to give them time and experience. Run tough plays that need to be practiced against new unsuspecting Defensive schemes. The coach should have seen that there were opportunities here and taken advantage of all of them. As a crew coach, when I boat a crew against a lesser skilled team, I deliberately build a race plan that will be experimental and give them a better base of knowledge for future races. Different Sprint. Different moves. More aggression from the start. Negative splits racing. All of these options are best tested in a race situation against a foreign crew. I'm sure there are as many, or more, possibilities for basketball as well. In the end, the coach did a dis-service to the athletes in his/her charge by not doing this.

IMHO.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 3, 2006 10:18 am

Another way to look at it - it was just one game, and it enabled this girl to be a national record holder. To deny this girl that chance would have been a real pr*ck move on the coach's part.

mings · Post by **mings** » February 3, 2006 10:21 am

rednekkPH wrote:Another way to look at it - it was just one game, and it enabled this girl to be a national record holder. To deny this girl that chance would have been a real pr*ck move on the coach's part.

but is that really a record that a true self-respecting athlete wants?

Sam · Post by **Sam** » February 3, 2006 10:22 am

I can sort of see both sides here, but tAren't coaches suppose to motivate their players and to constantly push them to do their utmost and very best they can possibly be?

While the coach may have been wanting her to go for the record, perhaps the student wanted a chance for the record too.
I don't know which is more wrong...teaching a kid to be the best and do their best or telling a kid "I have to pull you out because you are just "too good."
Would you expect to get fired for doing an excellent job?

People must learn to accept that they cannot always win, but if they give up, they lose and they lose without dignity and will continue to lose thoughout life. The younger they are when this lesson is taught the easier it will be to deal with later when they don't get promotions,or whatever. If they lose thier taste for the game, because they got spanked, then so be it, they are not dedicated or motivated enough to be a better player. What about players who lose thier taste for the game because they are being held back? Like the students that are beyond the level of the class they are in, doing poorly because they are not challenged.

Would anyone not want a their child to perform as best as they can at anything else? Would anyone want them flubbing tests on purpose so someone else can get some notoriety or perhaps a scholarship or whatever?

Maybe the losing coach should consider another career field. Maybe her team could not have won, but they could have lost with dignity and made a statement, other than the coahes comments about playing a handicapped team... Sheesh I wonder if she would like to take on the parapalegics teams that play basketballin wheelchairs and expect to win?

It seems to me the coach had already considered the game lost before she showed up

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » February 3, 2006 10:25 am

mings wrote:
rednekkPH wrote:Another way to look at it - it was just one game, and it enabled this girl to be a national record holder. To deny this girl that chance would have been a real pr*ck move on the coach's part.
but is that really a record that a true self-respecting athlete wants?

Sure, why not? It was not her fault that the other team decided to roll over and play dead. In fact, I'd say it's a record deserving of much more pride than any set by a professional athlete who was all juiced up when he set it.