100-0 : Your thoughts?

[Kevin Daigle]

Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki

From what I read about the school, the kids at the losing school have dyslexia and ADD and stuff like that. Hardly a major handicap.

If you have an exhibition, then not going all out is acceptable, since it is understood before the game starts. But if you show up ready to compete, then you should be ready to lose as well as win.

yep pretty much

[Frank Dennis]

Again, not saying someone should be played down to, and like I said, if someone is suited to participating in something competitive, losing will make them try harder. I'm not suggesting that people be spared the experience of losing.

But, when I'm competing with someone, say in jiu jitsu... if I can toss him around at will, I then take no pleasure in victory. I'm not challenged, there's no chance I'll lose, and so victory carries no joy. After we're done, if I have the chance, I'll offer to train with him, talk to him about where the holes in his game are, suggest defenses to learn for what he was caught in, help him be better so the next time we roll, I might be challenged.

As I said, I realize this is not an action that you can take in the context of a team sport like football; you can't have the whole opposing team come train with you, it's not logistically feasible.

But, I would think the sensation of a pointless victory remains, so I was actually asking the question; what pleasure does one derive from widening the margin of victory against an opponent incapable of defending themselves once winning is a foregone conclusion? I'm curious...

Again, not saying that the aspect of competition should be removed from youth sports, I'm wondering why, in situations where loss is already ensured, and therefore effectively been experienced by the losers, the winning side would desire to prolong it. Who is that fun for?

Maybe I'm just weird...

Originally Posted by Kevin Daigle

as someone has already said in this thread i believe, its actually insulting to have an opponent "go easy on you" regardless of the situation. Playing against a team/opponent that is better than you only makes you better.....if they play DOWN to your level, they're doing you a disservice.

If it wasn't for all the games I lost, I wouldn't have had the drive, the anger, the intensity etc necessary to elevate myself to the level that I did (along with my team) in order to accomplish what we eventually did. And now, people are trying to rob kids of these lessons.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

They never said they got pleasure from beating this team, and I doubt anyone here would think that they should. But neither should they be chastised for playing to the best of their ability.

[Kevin Daigle]

Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki

They never said they got pleasure from beating this team, and I doubt anyone here would think that they should. But neither should they be chastised for playing to the best of their ability.

precisely.....its not about taking pleasure in the victory, its about adhering to the standards and values of the game being played.

there are rules, such as how long the game is.....and thats how long you play for.

[Ewen Roth]

I'm not sure if the tougher-than-thou crowd realizes how that game went. It's been reported that it was basically a half-court steal + layup drill, with some 3-pointers thrown in (including in the fourth quarter). I would be surprised if the losing team got more than half a dozen shots (apparently all missed) in the entire game.

How did anybody learn ANYthing? Spare me the "life lesson" crap, the players on the losing side didn't even care either way.

There are dozens of ways the winning coach could have made that game useful to his own players. He chose not to. If he is unable to bring added value to his team, he's not worth much as a coach.

[Robert Callahan]

Originally Posted by Frank Dennis

Again, not saying that the aspect of competition should be removed from youth sports, I'm wondering why, in situations where loss is already ensured, and therefore effectively been experienced by the losers, the winning side would desire to prolong it. Who is that fun for?

It is fun for no one. But I would argue that the winning team is Morally obligated to play to the very best of their ability. That is the only way the opposing team can really push themselves and see how their skill stacks up. As soon as we start making it easier for other people who are not as good they develop a false sense of accomplishment.

The real atrocity here is in the coaching of the poor girls that lost that game. That they are playing in a league that they are obviously not prepared for year after year is appalling. They need to get a coach that will work the girls to a point where they can be competitive, or they need to find another league where they can play "for fun"

-Robert

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

Why isn't the person that set this game up being fired. That was the biggest mistake here.

[Frank Dennis]

Originally Posted by Jamie J. Skibicki

Why isn't the person that set this game up being fired. That was the biggest mistake here.

Very true.

[Christian Gotcher]

I fall on the side of 'what's the point?' It's already been said, but nobody got anything out of this game. Why not throw out the benchers, play your defense, shore up your weak points, hell, let the players who often don't get a chance to throw around some? When we'd be winning by six points in a soccer game (rarely, but there were 2 schools in the league who played to be beaten), our coach would play the bench and have us go for plays that we hadn't been able to pull off on successful teams. Does that mean you don't go for the goal? Of course you do! But give yourself a challenge- something to work for.

Playing your starters, going for threes, and the like sounds, to me, like putting a room full of level 2 trainers through "Makimba." Nobody gets anything out of it, so why bother?

[Ewen Roth]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

It is fun for no one. But I would argue that the winning team is Morally obligated to play to the very best of their ability. That is the only way the opposing team can really push themselves and see how their skill stacks up.

-Robert

It was 59-0 at half-time!! And the losing team "kept trying" and it ended 100-0. The question of how their skills stacked up and the winning team's "morality" was probably settled around minute 4 of the first quarter. The rest of the game, as it was played, was a waste of everybody's time.