Update: Coach fired for un-apologizing after 100-0 win
posted at 4:20 pm on January 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
The exciting conclusion to Friday’s inexplicably popular post about the school apologizing for a win that wasn’t very “Christ-like.”
The coach of a Texas high school basketball team that beat another team 100-0 was fired Sunday, the same day he sent an e-mail to a newspaper saying he will not apologize “for a wide-margin victory when my girls played with honor and integrity.”
Kyle Queal, the headmaster for Covenant School, said in The Dallas Morning News online edition that he could not answer if the firing was a direct result of coach Micah Grimes’ e-mail disagreeing with administrators who called the blowout “shameful.”…
A parent who attended the game said Covenant continued to make 3-pointers — even in the fourth quarter. She praised the Covenant players but said spectators and an assistant coach were cheering wildly as their team edged closer to 100 points.
Covenant was up 59-0 at halftime.
Would Jesus be chucking threes in the fourth quarter up 85 points? The coach asks himself and answers … yes:
The Apology. In response to the statement posted on The Covenant School Website, I respectfully disagree with the apology, especially the notion that the Covenant School girls basketball team should feel “embarrassed” or “ashamed”. We played the game as it was meant to be played and would not intentionally run up the score on any opponent. Although a wide-margin victory is never evidence of compassion, my girls played with honor and integrity and showed respect to Dallas Academy. We honor God, ourselves, and our families when we step on the court to compete. I do no wish to forfeit the game. What kind of example does it set for our children? Do we really want to punish Covenant School girls? Does forfeiting really help Dallas Academy girls? We experienced a blowout almost 4 years ago and it was painful, but it made us who we are today. I believe in the lessons that sports teach us. Competition builds character, and teaches us to value selflessness, hard work, and perseverance. As a coach, I have instilled in my girls these values. So if I lose my job over these statements, I will walk away with my integrity.
His girls played with “honor” by straining to hit 100 points against a team that was outmatched from the opening tip? Winning 60-2 would have also “built character,” champ.
Here’s the obligatory Fox & Friends debate, with Gretchen taking a surprise pro-showboating position. Exit question: How about running the shot clock down to one second on each possession when you’ve got a 70-point lead?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
actually they had a goal of scoring 100 points. so most of your points are well …pointless.
so let me see if i got this right…phelps conserves his energy so he can kick butt the next race and therefore humiliate his opponents by taking first place in all his olympic events. now i see.
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM
phelps is evil
/sarc
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 8:49 PM
I agree that world-class athletes competiting at the highest possible level and a woefully uncompetitive girls’ basketball league demand precisely the same sportsmanship analysis. Well done.
Michael – I’m still waiting on the explanation of how beating a pathetic team 100-0 is cool.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
LOL :)
Califemme on January 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
it is worth repeating …would the losing team been better off losing 30-0 or 50 to zip….what is acceptable. we all know those of you hammering on this coach do not have an answer.
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM
How does one get to be a “world-class” athlete without beating the pants off of everyone?
Califemme on January 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM
I have read a lot of (not all of) the comments with interest … curious how such a trifling event has led to such an fascinating debate.
Anyway I have some questions:
(1) Why is it humiliating for the team to lose by 100 points?
(2) Who decides whether it is humiliating or not?
(3) If the loser does feel humilated, why is that a problem? They chose to play so they chose to accept the risks.
(4) If a player feels humiliated by losing to a better opponent in a game where losing is one of the normal three possible outcomes doesn’t that show poor attitude / bad character / a lack of sportsmanship on the part of the loser?
I agree that one should normally avoid humilating people, but I don’t see how or why this is humilating, and I don’t see how other people can decide this for the losing players.
YiZhangZhe on January 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM
someone please tell me anyone said it was about being cool
johnny you are still smarting from those drubbings i see
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Says who? You learn the most from watching those who are that much better, and if someone has the benefit of experiencing the play of someone so far ahead, that’s even better.
People who are that much better than you usually won’t play you because it is boring for them and they don’t want to have bad feelings about your ineptness (the general “your”).
What usually happens with people who are LUCKY enough to have those so much better than them still willing to play them is to adjust their goals. For chess, a potzer playing a grand master would not play to win (since that would be close to impossbile) but change his goals to play just to hold off mate for 20 moves, or to get a check in somewhere.
The losing basketball team should have concentrated on getting a basket as their goal. Nothing wrong with that.
Stop making it out as if everyone is a delicate flower to be broken for all life by getting crushed in one competition. That is a sad thing to imply about people, in general. And for people who are like that, they are sad, pathetic individuals.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
don’t want to lose 100-0??
play better
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
“The losing team blew it off, the winning team girls had a feather in their cap and could have had the anecdote later in life to say ‘yeah, it was kinda cool, when i was a kid, we won a basketball game 100-0′. But no. Some elites just couldn’t let that go by without moralizing this whole thing into something bigger.” – Michael in MI on January 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Um, I guess that was it.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Christ once said, “Suffer the little children to come to Me.” What would He say about these kids winning by such a wide margin? He who chastised the local Pharisees and Zealots who wanted to fight against Rome?
I’d like to think that He would say “Suck it up. It’s only a game.”
Again, it’s not like the coach tried to run up the score. Sounds to me like an attempt was made to keep the score down, but the other team was just that damn bad that day.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Yeah. Having won a basketball game 100-0 is certainly something to remember. Why do you have a problem with that?
But I understand that you’re in favor of the tyranny of the incompetent and fragile. Great.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM
That mean winning coach should be punished by coaching MY kids’ high school team! That’ll teach the bastard!
clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM
It was reported that the starters were in there for most of the game. I say let the bench play at 20-0 & beyond.
jgapinoy on January 26, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Anyone think the Steelers should apologize for kicking ass in the upcoming Super Bowl?
clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM
In high school, our basketball team was in a tournament game against the defending 4A state champions–with all of their starters returning and only two of ours. The champs had ridden a yellow dog (that’s a school bus) from Lufkin to San Antonio–about 300 miles. Our basketball coach knew they’d be tired and stiff from the ride in, and told his kids to press, and press, and press. He laid off for the whole 2nd half, but our team still won 97-36. Kids…that was before three-pointers were in high school basketball. Was that sportsmanlike? You bet. Our team controlled the game, and didn’t let the other team back into it. And no, our team didn’t make it to State that year.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM
I’m wondering what teams will still want to play Dallas Academy? What is there to be gained by playing a bunch of cry-babies who can’t offer even the minimal level of competition?
If I were any other coach in that league, I would refuse to play them. It’s a lose-lose proposition.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM
You’re the reason W felt the need to campaign as a “compassionate conservative.”
With that attitude, giving to the poor is for losers, right?
jgapinoy on January 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM
They will.
jgapinoy on January 26, 2009 at 9:12 PM
When you have a team of eight, chances are at least two starters will be in at all times. Of course that’s assuming they don’t want to play with only four players. Not that I’d be willing to give up any ideas.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:13 PM
I’m not sure that the results would be considered “glorious”, but I also don’t find them particularly reprehensible on the part of the winning team, either. You should play within the rules as best you can, and the results are the results. 50-49, 78-52 or 100-0.
You compare this to playing grandmasters in chess. You’re right, a grandmaster would find no glory in beating me… but if we’re matched in the same competition, or same league or what have you, and I lost miserably… I wouldn’t find it to be due to a moral fault on the part of the grandmaster. He or she was simply better then I am, and by a wide margin.
Here is where I think we’re getting tied up: we’re disagreeing on the results as opposed to the competition.
People compete for a variety of reasons, but if you do so, you need to be able to accept the results, provided they were within the rules. The sportsmanship part comes from competing well within the rules. Losing by a lot or winning by a lot doesn’t make it unsporting.
If, for instance, the coach was encouraging his players to gouge out the opponent’s eyes, or to break their legs in the halls before the game, yes, that would be unsporting.
But simply competing and doing well, VERY well, doesn’t strike me as unsporting. If you compete, and you agree to the rules beforehand–which both teams clearly did–the results are the results.
Nothing wrong with that. Nothing humiliating. Nothing morally objectionable.
To me, the only morally objectionable thing is to expect one of the teams, playing by the same rules as the other, not to give it their best. Again, if I’m on the receiving end, I’m more disgusted by this than by being blown off the court.
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 9:13 PM
“clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM”
u mean, just like the pats last year …
/hey, WAIT A MINUTE!
//heh
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:15 PM
It certainly is proud memory and, as Michael stated, “cool.” I’ll bet you and your “friends” have lots of memories like that. Since you’ve obviously nailed my profile, let me take a crack at yours. I’ll bet you and your friends still sit around the trailer and talk about the glory days in 7th grade and that one time when you pinned the retarded kid in the state wrasslin’ tournament.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 9:15 PM
If any coach should be fired it is one who sucks so bad that his team loses by 100 points! What a crappy coach that is! I bet the fired coach is snapped up by a less wussy school.
clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:16 PM
I remember a game I played in HS where we beat the opposing team 104-8. The coached continually pressed us to continue to execute, both offensively AND defensively: executing the fast break, moving the ball inside against a zone defense, stopping not only shots but then full-court pressure to keep the ball from getting out of the back court. I remember the coach benching at least one starter for laying off a guy driving to the bucket. Despite all the media attention to this story, I have not a read a single thing about the winning team to indicate that they were unsportsman-like – no taunting, no trash-talking, making fun of the opposing team, etc. Several people have commented about how difficult it would be to score 100 points in a game. By all accounts the losing team never stopped trying. It’s about execution and intensity, and the discipline needed to keep it up from start to finish, no matter how far you are ahead or behind and both teams appear to have succeeded. Everyone else is just bellyaching.
Roc on January 26, 2009 at 9:16 PM
No. His liberal leanings are why he campaigned on that.
Charity is for individuals to decide to give, not the government to force out of them. If the government wants to give money to the poor, then it has to be for some reason other than compassion.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
The point is there are no awards for winning a regular season game by a lot of points–not even in the NBA. In this case the coach took an unnecessary risk to gain something inconsequential. Not the shrewdest calculation on his part.
Yeah, Phelps is Phelps because he defeats the best swimmers in the world. If he spent his time beating old ladies at the YMCA it wouldn’t matter how many lengths of the pool he won by.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Uh, Michael Phelps didn’t beat the pants of everyone. He barely won a couple of his medals. Of course, he did win.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
They never whined about it. Not once. They were there to have fun and they stuck around to the end.
Limiting a drubbing is called sportsmanship. You don’t get it, apparently, nor do a lot of others. It used to be called a sense of fair play. It was the American way.
No wonder we got Obama. We have lost our way.
Tennman on January 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM
“Roc on January 26, 2009 at 9:16 PM”
and u somehow think your coach was doing the right thing there?!?!?!?
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:18 PM
skimming the coach’s statement, he seems to be a grade a arsehole and, imo, the covanent school is WAY better off without him …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:20 PM
I can’t see how “letting the other guy score a few points” by deliberately under-performing would be anything but cheating. If a professional athlete did this there would be investigations and calls for his termination. Why should the winning team throw a few plays? Sick
clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Perhaps some on this thread would like an anti-dog-eat-dog law for sports?
clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM
How do you figure? What statements led you to this conclusion?
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM
The 1908 Olympic Creed: “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”
Damn political correctness!
Commentary by Michael Josephson
Eugenio Monti is an Olympic gold medalist who doesn’t see sportsmanship the same way many of you do.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM
We had a parapalegic on our high school wrestling team. Nothing ticked him off more than people taking it easy on him. He ended up being an okay wrestler, but he just loved the fact that he was out on the same mat as everyone else, even though he got pinned very often. He had everyone’s respect, because he never cried about losing and never tried to hold his opponent back because of his problem. He even taunted people, on occassion, to allow them to feel okay going full out and to get their best out of them (when he thought they were taking it easy). Now that’s a sportsman.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
“john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM”
“would not intentionally run up the score on any opponent”
that’s.a.lie.
/or do you need more?
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:24 PM
To me it’s about this unwritten rule now that it’s morally repugnant to be too good. Too good means unfair and requires balancing. If you’re too rich, you must have done so unfairly and on the backs of others, so we’ll tax you back to our level. If you’re too smart, we can’t give only you A’s, so everyone gets them. If you win too much, or by too great a margin, we can’t have that because it makes the loser feel bad.
I can grasp the sportsmanship idea… it’s repugnant, and, unchristian, I believe, to win at any and all costs. But if you work harder, or are more talented, and the results bear that out, why should it be considered wrong?
Striving for the best is what this country should be about. Having to apologize for winning by too much, when playing within the rules, is disgusting to me.
If we’re not allowed to succeed, what else do we have left?
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM
“clnurnberg on January 26, 2009 at 9:21 PM”
who is saying anything about letting the other team score points? they can’t control that. what they CAN control is their personnel, shot selection, etc. — all of which they chose NOT to for the entire 32 [or whatever] minutes …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Sounds to me like Monti wanted to beat a worthy opponent, not a hobbled one. How this compares to two high school girls basketball teams is beyond me. After all, their game was in progress. What would you have them do, give up in the middle of the game? I’d be pissed off if my opponent did that to me. It’s the equivalent of taunting by a boxer who drops his hands, screaming “Hit me!”
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Which the coach, being a student of the game, knew was a possibility. This got bigger than he could have guessed, but he did know that running up the score is something coaches have been criticized for, by other coaches, for decades. The criticism isn’t something invented during the past decade by the chattering class.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Dr. Carl Ludwig “Luz” Long was a German Olympic athlete, notable for winning Silver at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin and for giving advice to his competitor, Jesse Owens, who went on to win the gold medal for the broad jump (now referred to as the long jump) as a result of Long’s advice. For his actions in the spirit of sportsmanship, Long was posthumously awarded the Pierre de Coubertin medal.
Remember: those 1936 Olympics were special.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
PoP – I figured you’d make up some bullsh*t story like that in response. Gosh, now I feel bad about having sterotyped you as a wrassler and all . . .
P.S. The girls on the losing team didn’t cry. They didn’t try to change the rules. They didn’t complain. My beef is with the other team and its coach.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM
So you were at the game, and you saw what happened. You know for a fact he’s lying.
Yeah, actually, you should show more than your assumptions.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM
“If you win too much, or by too great a margin, we can’t have that because it makes the loser feel bad.”
missing the point as so many have done. the final score is not the problem. THE TEAM DELIBERATELY PUSHING THE LIMITS FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE GAME [for the benefit of NOONE, including themselves] IS THE PROBLEM.
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM
No, and it’s idiotic to suggest it. You’re welcome to read by 8:38pm post for some examples why backing off can be beneficial to both teams without affecting the final outcome.
The point is that competition is about winning—but not all about winning.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Would a 2-0 victory been any less humiliating?
ItsForTheChildren on January 26, 2009 at 9:31 PM
See… I don’t agree with this at all.
Fair play is just that… playing fairly. By the rules.
It doesn’t mean I have to stop playing when my opponent is unable to keep up with me.
There are no guarantee on the results in life. We need to try to maintain fairness and a level playing field, but there’s nothing inherently unfair about doing a lot better than someone.
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 9:31 PM
“john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM”
FACT — the team’s starters attempted 3 pointers during the 4th quarter. that is not in dispute.
so yeah, he’s lying …
/none are so blind …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:32 PM
john1schn: who’s side are you on? If you are on the coaches’ side, then I hope you know that he’s claiming that he did exactly the things that I and others say he should have done in the name of sportsmanship. If he is telling the truth, and I am inclined to believe him, then I have absolutely no problem with the 100-0 result.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Get a friggin’ life. I have no need to make sh!t up to debate you. (And you’re deigning to instruct me on “sportsmanship”???) And your post wasn’t addressed to me, anyway.
That’s true, but their parents and their coach did. Anyone who plays them has to know that that are bunch of cry-baby adults with them. I wouldn’t step on the court with any of them.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:33 PM
FACT — the team’s starters attempted 3 pointers during the 4th quarter. that is not in dispute.
And they made none. So what? Three-pointers are a lower-percentage shot. It seems to me that in a high-school game it’s a good way to run the score up more slowly, not more quickly. They scored only 12 points in the 4th quarter.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:33 PM
“mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:33 PM”
“so what?”
so — there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO ATTEMPT A SINGLE ONE …
“They scored only 12 points in the 4th quarter.”
good. it appears to be 12 more than they needed to, but i suppose that’s something …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Buckaroo: You want them to hold onto the ball all quarter? Not even to try a single shot? Now come on, read my posts—I am pro-sportsmanship all the way. But that’s ridiculous.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
ummm… 8 girl team. There’s ALWAYS a starter out there. As far as a three pointer goes, big deal. Why would anyone be insulted by someone trying a shot?
Please. Either you compete or you don’t. Backing off is what the coach did. Either you don’t read the whole article or you cherrypicked it. He said he tried to slow the game down, and apparently did, based on the box score. Again, what would any of you have him do, walk over to the other coach and ask him to cry uncle?
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM
One thing that progressoverpeace and I agree on is that the whining from the losing coach and/or parents is unbecoming—to the degree they initiated it. I maintain that, no matter how you define it, sportsmanship can’t be forced. If your coach forces you to shake the opposing team’s hand, and you bitch about it internally, you’re not a good sport even if you comply. That’s something you should do willingly and graciously. So it goes with any act of sportsmanship.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Even though we disagree on the specific sportsmanship issue (which you are satisfied the coach followed, anyway) I think you are starting to see the problems I was addressing.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:42 PM
My comment that you responded to probably poorly included the word “you,” which didn’t refer to You, it’s just a phrase. In this regard, I believe that the coach did what was expected of him in the name of sportsmanship, and like I mentioned in a previous post, the other team was just that bad that day.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:42 PM
You probably won’t understand why, but I agree with this completely.
The two teams here squared off, under the same rules, which they both agreed to. One lost, the other won.
I’m not sure the Olympic spirit is embodied by the notion that we should fight well, only not too well. Fight well, but if your opponent isn’t as capable, make it up by hitting yourself in the eye a few times.
I’m pretty sure the original wrestlers didn’t find it noble to slip and fall when they were handily beating their opponents just to seem sporting.
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 9:42 PM
There’s an old joke here in TX, the annual Texas-Texas A&M game was on, and the Longhorns were winning 56-0. Someone lit a firecracker and the resulting BANG sounded like the referee’s gun to end the game, so the Longhorns went to the locker room. The Aggies remained on the field, and 12 plays later, they scored.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM
I’m in total agreement, mcg.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:47 PM
12thMonkey: make sure to read the links about Carl “Luz” Long or Eugenio Monti that I posted above. They go further than I would even contemplate to embody the spirit of “winning isn’t everything”. But they are the Olympic atheletes and I (we) are not (I assume), so it ought to at least give us pause.
progressoverpeace: actually, no, we don’t agree any more than we did in our first clash. Remember, even then I said that as long as the coach took good faith steps to prevent a score run up that 100-0 was acceptable. That it isn’t the absolute number that matters but the approach.
And I don’t think you do anyone a service by telling your team to play poorly. Laying off a full-court press means your team has to work that much harder near the rim; forcing a particular defense makes you have to work that much harder to intercept the ball; limiting yourself to three-pointers makes you practice a lower-percentage shot; etc. etc.
I support the fact that the coach waited until the middle of the last quarter to aggressively run the clock down.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Hook ‘em horns, john1schn!
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
i just don’t see ANY evidence the coach did ease up — sorry — my sympathy meter for him at the moment is zero …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
12 points in the 4th quarter, Buckaroo. That’s evidence.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM
i sense many people here were embarrassed by their poor play as kids
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Oh, and on the three-pointers, Buckaroo: the coach claims that only four three-pointers were made all game, and none in the fourth quarter. 12 lousy points. If he is telling the truth about that—and that is, of course, easily verifiable with a look at the stat book—then how can anyone credibly claim that he was trying to run up the score by taking three-pointers?
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Every Damn Day.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:52 PM
mcg, the fact yer TAKING 3 pointers at any time during such a lopsided game is just poor — you want to prove something — tell them to shoot from 15-18 ft out with the shot clock down to, say, 2 — THAT would be challenging the team without trying to pile it on absolutely needlessly …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM
I’m actually teaching a course at UT this semester as a guest lecturer. I’m psyched to be able to teach at my old alma mater. Alas, when I was there, we sucked at football, and we were just coming up in basketball.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM
I sense the only accomplishments in Jamson’s life are sports related.
Mcg, how can you argue that he was not trying to run up the score when it was 59-0 at halftime?
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Really? What’s embarrassing is that there are people complaining about winners.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Nonsense, Buckaroo. They are lower-percentage shots to begin with. They only made four all game, and were (if we believe your stat) 0 for 3 in the fourth quarter. They clearly need practice.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:56 PM
I am aware that we still disagree on that issue. No problem.
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 9:57 PM
/throws up hands over the entire 3-point debate as he’s clearly getting nowhere here …
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Because if he is to be believed, he played his benchers, he ended the full-court press, he instituted a disadvantageous defense, etc. etc. There’s only so much you can do short of not playing.
Look, if someone can come up with serious evidence that he’s lying, so be it. But a lot of you are quoting the claim from a Dallas Academy mom who claims that going for three in the fourth quarter was inappropriate. Well for goodness’ sake, they didn’t make any of those. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t afford her any credibility when she also claims they still had the full-court press on, too.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM
OK, would you have them drive to the hole, make the basket and likely get a free throw because of the foul committed by any one of the other team?
I’d rather a team attempt threes against me. The chances of hitting a three (especially in high school) are poor at best.
After all, this AIN’T the NBA.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM
i sense my barb hit home
Jamson64 on January 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Uh, yeah, Jamson. Snap. Ouch. You got me.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM
They are lower percentage, but if the team has control of the offensive boards then there is no real cost to taking the shot.
Jump shots can lead to giving up long rebounds and fast breaks. The winning team must have been incredibly dominant to not give up a long rebound, long pass and layup.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 10:02 PM
It was 35-0 at the end of the first quarter (at which point Dallas Academy should have forfeited). Covenant slowed down their play by 40% to only hit 100 (scoring only 65 in the next 3 quarters versus a possible 105). Maybe he should have blindfolded his team?
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 10:02 PM
“john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM”
apparently noone’s reading my posts — i said attempt LONG TWOS — 15-18 ft. away …
/shrug
Buckaroo on January 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM
So why would it have been better if the score was just 80-0? What lessons would the winners and losers have learned from that? This should have been a non-issue.
huckleberryfriend on January 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM
If the team is that good, then where the shot is taken will not have that much difference, the domination in the paint and on the boards will still be there.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I did, and they are certainly interesting stories. However, consider this:
The story about Owens and Long is an excellent example of sportsmanship, but I’m sure you’ll agree that these two, for not a single moment, would consider holding back during the competition. If there was no one else in Long’s league during the competition, would he still have tried to jump as far? If Owens was a great distance ahead in the 200 meters, would he pull back so as not to disgrace the 2nd place competitor?
Essentially, what you argue for is that Owens not run as fast if it’s obvious the others racing against him cannot match his ability. I say, instead, Owens is an awesome athelete, and he should run as fast as he can, regardless of how distraught that leaves the other runners. He deserved the victory, and the margin by which he won.
The same goes for this basketball team. If the other runners can’t quite handle seeing Owens so far ahead, perhaps they shouldn’t be running against him. At no point does he owe them a finish to the race that isn’t humiliating. You compete, and live with the results.
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM
In a 100 point spread, you will quibble about an extra point? “Don’t take that shot Ellie, it might be unsportsmanlike! Step a little closer!”
Puleeze.
The coach said he slowed the game down, rotated his starters out more, and the proof is in the box score. You have no argument left, unless you were there and can prove otherwise. I’m willing to take him at his word at this point. If someone can prove to me how slowing scoring from 35 points in the 1st quarter to 12 points in the final quarter isn’t letting up, I’d be most grateful.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 10:10 PM
PoP – Hey, there was a guy on our high school baseball team who wore a blindfold. Nothing ticked him off more than people taking it easy on him. He ended up being an okay bunter, but he just loved the fact that he was out on the same diamond as everyone else, even though he struck out very often. He had everyone’s respect, because he never cried about getting smacked by the ball losing and never tried to widen the strike zone because of his problem. He even taunted people, on occassion, to allow them to feel okay throwing high cheese at his head. Now that’s a sportsman.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM
It matters because if you think you can get multiple open looks for 3′s each trip then it is worth taking the lower percentage shot multiple times if needed in order to get 50% more points per trip.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I can’t believe this entire controversy is about the winning coach and not the fact that Dallas Academy played the ENTIRE game and didn’t make a single field goal.
The very bare minimum anyone could ask of any basketball coach at ANY level is for your team to score a SINGLE point, which would put you in line to win a game! Why does the losing coach still have a job?
L.N. Smithee on January 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Here’s the link to the Dallas Academy Bulldogs scores this year.
http://www.hsgametime.com/dfw/schoolinfo.htm?propertyId=1&sportId=7&schoolId=1113&infoType=schedule
I’d be worried if I were the Cambridge or Waxahachie coaches. Maybe I should just run my subs out from the start and warn them not to shoot. Can’t win by too much, you know.
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 10:18 PM
No, I would not—but I also wouldn’t expect them to give each other advice on how to beat them, either. And that’s exactly what Carl Long did!
Well, no, I wouldn’t say that, but it is an understandable inference. The difference here, though, is that there really are other concrete goals to go for besides the gold medal: personal best performance, Olympic and world records, and so forth. In an individual sport with records on the line I really don’t think you reduce your performance for any reason.
Furthermore, it’s pretty rare for a track race to be so incredibly one-sided that a champion could risk slacking off just to make the race tighter. In other words it’s pretty rare to get the equivalent of a 100-0 score in a Olympic class track event.
I still think it is amazing, though, that these Olympians would actually consider giving their competitors an assist that might very well put them over the top, which is exactly what Carl Long did.
mcg on January 26, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Hey, let’s take the idea elsewhere. Drag racers who win by more than one second because they didn’t let up when they were ahead can get fired, too.
I get that y’all want to teach kids to lift up their fellows, but I figure the best possible way to do that is to win 100-0 THEN volunteer a few coaching / team play days with the losing team.
If someone better than me “took it easy” in a game (especially a lopsided one) and still beat me, I’d be insulted.
If they offered to teach me how they beat me, I’d feel honored.
If I lost and my parents had a hissy fit, I’d be mortally embarrassed.
Most of us weren’t at the game, I didn’t even watch it. I’m not seeing abuse on the part of the winners. I don’t see what they did so wrong. If it was boxing, yeah, if you keep hitting ‘em when they’re down, you can do real damage. Basketball, not so much.
Merovign on January 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Like I said, you are lecturing me on sportsmanship?
progressoverpeace on January 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM
There is a rematch on Jan 30. It can be tough to beat the same team twice in a season. Dallas has been watching game tape and has no doubt made adjustments. I’ll take Dallas +93 points.
dedalus on January 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM
You KNOW that new coach is going to make it a 3 point game.
12thMonkey on January 26, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Again, if they were that dominating, it wouldn’t matter. Did you EVER play organized basketball? Ever have a coach that taught fundamentals?
But let’s suppose you’re right, and Covenant DID get multiple looks. Why in the blue hell should they pass it up? Just to make the other team “feel” better?
If I was being blown out by my opponent, I would lose respect for them if they didn’t try to score.
They attempted, by accounts here and by the former coach, 3 threes in the fourth quarter. They made none of them. They scored a total of 12 points in that quarter. IF they had made every three they attempted in the fourth quarter, thus nullifying a follow up two, the score could have been 103 to zero. Hardly worse than it really was.
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 10:28 PM
On the other hand, maybe this girls high school basketball team could have a clinic for the Dallas Mavericks. Talk about a team that sucks…
john1schn on January 26, 2009 at 10:29 PM
The coach was canned because he acted like a tool. 100-0 is a joke – kind of like an 18 year old rolling a pre-schooler then later claiming that it would build the rollees’ character. There’s a difference between beating a team and humiliating them (this was the latter). Even so, if the coach had simply acknowledged that it could have been handled better, he’d still be employed.
volnation on January 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM
PoP – Come on, it was kind of funny. All of this serious debating competition reminds me that I haven’t finished engraving my ninth place soccer teams’ “good attitude” trophies that have been sitting in the back of my Volvo for the past month. Later.
johnnynucleo on January 26, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »