OT: Running up the score

I saw this and I'm not sure what side of the fence I am on.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8738942/107-2-bloomington-south-girls-basketball-team-beats-arlington

on one hand I can't imagine a score of 107-2 to be anything but a classless act but on the other hand I wasn't there and I don't know any of the key factors like how horrible the losing team really is (says they've lost 23 in a row) or how much time the second and third string girls played from the winning team, etc. Too many factors to have an opinion at this point but at first glance, this doesn't pass the smell test.

Discuss.

On one had I hate when teams get blown out and people piss and moan about the starters playing more than 5 min. Its not the winning teams fault the other team absolutely sucks, how are they supposed to get better without playing. However, on the other hand, do you really get any better destroying a team that has no reason to even be on the same court/field.

One thing to keep in mind: we're talking about Indiana High School Basketball, in Bloomington, no less.

I go back and forth on things like this.

If you're THAT much better than the other team, can you really help it?

And do you really sit your starters five minutes into the contest just to keep from embarassing the other team?

I have to say no. If you're a legitimate coach with a team that has the ability to do something special in that given season, you treat games like this as a very intense practice. If scores like this happen, it happens.

well I'll admit I'm the first person to complain about the "wussification" of America. Kids need to learn what it's like to lose, or strike out, or in some cases not play.

I remember my first t-ball game I played we lost 52-0. Yep you read that right. 52-0. I cried so hard. I was 5 years old and it devastated me. We never got a guy on base. True story, we lost to that same team in the playoffs 5-2. Granted it's t-ball but it's still an example of how kids, if properly guided can grow. Now, there are no outs, every kid bats each inning and the score isn't kept. I call BS. wussification at it's finest.

my little brother (16 years younger than me) once asked me to pledge money for jump-rope-heart. I asked him how much he thinks he can jump rope and he said it doesn't matter because they don't actually use jump ropes, they just pretend to jump rope. When I asked my dad about it he said the principle told him that A) it's better for the kids because they are constantly moving and not stopping to fiddle with a tangled rope (which I guess I can understand) and B) it hurts kids' feelings when they can't jump rope as good as other kids. Again, I call BS. wussification at it's finest.

On the other hand, what does losing 107-2 teach a kid. And for that matter what does it teach a kid to win 107-2.

I get the point that it's not their fault the other team is horrible. They've worked just as hard to get in the game and play. But I just don't think I can get onboard with it.

It's embarrassing either way you look at it and with a score like 107-2 nobody wins.

You tell your 2nd and 3rd string kids to pass the ball a few more times before shooting.

They had to be shooting pretty damn fast to score 107 points.

How long are high school quarters? 12 minutes?

THEstjoemfan wrote:

You tell your 2nd and 3rd string kids to pass the ball a few more times before shooting.

They had to be shooting pretty damn fast to score 107 points.

How long are high school quarters? 12 minutes?

right! I was thinking the same thing.

High school quarters are 8 minutes long. To score that much means that they were fast breaking on every steal. It also means some type of an aggressive defense. There are plenty of ways to hold a score down without embarrassing the opposing team. Walk the ball up the court, pass it 8-10 times before shooting, work to get the ball to your poorest scorer and let them shoot, run through your offense several times before shooting, no lay-ups, back off on defense and allow the other team to shoot the ball. I could go on and on. If a coach wants to hold it down, they can. Indiana could also help stop this by putting in a running clock like Michigan has. When a team has a 30 point lead, the clock runs for everything. That would really shorten up the game.

Maybe they had a sparty grad operate the clock?

2ndComingOfBo wrote:

Maybe they had a sparty grad operate the clock?

NICE!

joe's gonna hate me again but you just made my signature line!

I'm sorry, but when you put your 2nd and 3rd stringers in, you don't tell them to "ok, don't play 100%". Some of those kids may only see the floor once or twice the rest of the year. When your normal rotation (ie. starters) are in, you work on set offenses, working the ball around, etc., as if it were a practice. When those kids come out for the game, you treat the score as if it 0-0.

I saw a comment on Yahoo! that said "Damn I had Arlington +100. I guess that's $20 down the drain."

that made me laugh a bit.

2ndComingOfBo wrote:

joe's gonna hate me again but you just made my signature line!

So anytime anyone compliments him he has to "frame it" in his signature line? I wonder if he still has his 5th grade report card on his refrigerator. Some one sure craves to be recognized. Sandy-would this count as the wussification of America?

Back to the OP. This is not rocket science. I once coached a HS boy's soccer team. We were far better than the teams we played against. Once I we were up 3-5 (depending on time left in the game) to 0 I pulled them back. Made them complete so many passes before they could shoot. Told them to they couldn't score inside the box. One game was still pretty bad so I told them they could only score on headers. This still allowed them to work on their skills without rubbing the other teams face in it.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

I'm sorry, but when you put your 2nd and 3rd stringers in, you don't tell them to "ok, don't play 100%". Some of those kids may only see the floor once or twice the rest of the year. When your normal rotation (ie. starters) are in, you work on set offenses, working the ball around, etc., as if it were a practice. When those kids come out for the game, you treat the score as if it 0-0.

Your right, you don't tell bench players they can't score, but this team only had nine players, so it not like they had a third string. They all had to have plenty of scoring and then there comes a time to teach them compassion. I coached basketball. I had some good teams and games that had lopsided scores. Never did I have players that didn't understand that it was time to ease up, even if they were the third string.

TheBigHouse wrote:

Your right, you don't tell bench players they can't score, but this team only had nine players, so it not like they had a third string. They all had to have plenty of scoring and then there comes a time to teach them compassion. I coached basketball. I had some good teams and games that had lopsided scores. Never did I have players that didn't understand that it was time to ease up, even if they were the third string.

Big House, with you being a coach and having lived those lopsided games, you have to admit that there are things that you could do to keep the score down.

I get it... it'd be an injustice to tell a kid that sits on the bench and finally gets in a chance to get in the game that he/she can't score but surely being an authoritative figure in their lives you could make it clear to them that at that stage in the game scoring point after point isn't an objective. Maybe tell them to focus on passing or plays or fundamentals or whatever. I'd assume that the kids would understand that it's 70-1 and the game is in hand at that point and there are other things they can work on other than scoring. JMO

Sandy..Maybe I'm miss understanding you or you misunderstood me, but I was agreeing with you in my post. There is no reason what so ever for a score to 107-2. I stated that in an earlier post. I was disagreeing with a post that Hail wrote saying that 2nd and 3rd stringers have a right to score, even if the score is lopsided. I, as a coach, would never have allowed that and my players didn't want that, either.

TheBigHouse wrote:

Sandy..Maybe I'm miss understanding you or you misunderstood me, but I was agreeing with you in my post. There is no reason what so ever for a score to 107-2. I stated that in an earlier post. I was disagreeing with a post that Hail wrote saying that 2nd and 3rd stringers have a right to score, even if the score is lopsided. I, as a coach, would never have allowed that and my players didn't want that, either.

yep got it. I think I must have misread you. We are clearly on the same page.

And for the sake of taking the Switzerland role, I honestly don't know if there is a right or wrong on this topic. Mine is just an opinion that's all, as is everyone else s

Interesting topic though.