Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


High School Girls Basketball team destroys opponent 115-2.
November 21, 2002 2:41 PM   Subscribe

High School Girls Basketball team destroys opponent 115-2. Is sportsmanship about to go the way of the dodo? More and more teams are pushing for winning (and winning by a lot) more than just playing well. Is it the coach's fault? Could it be that the players are just too good and they couldn't 'help' crushing their opponent by over 100 points? (I say that, of course, in jest)
posted by gwong (60 comments total)

 
I bet they're kicking themselves that they gave up the two points.
posted by LeLiLo at 2:49 PM on November 21, 2002


Clearly, if you read this article, the coach hardly "pushed for winning, (and winning by a lot)". The problem here is that these two teams should never have played. It's not a friendly pick up game at the park, it's the playoffs, it's not like he could have had his players stop shooting... And before I get flamed, yes, I realize at 115 pts, they weren't holding back TOO hard, but let's not all jump on this guy without reading the article...
posted by jonson at 2:50 PM on November 21, 2002


What counts as sportsmanship? It sounds like the Walkerville coach did all he could to weaken his team - favoring freshmen and JVers, restricting which players were allowed to score, used less aggressive strategies, etc. It's bad sportsmanship, IMHO, to tell your players flat-out, "Don't score, this team is bad." Plus, this was a playoff game. What was that team even doing there?
posted by risenc at 2:51 PM on November 21, 2002


Girl's basketball? There had to be a looot of tears shed.

I think it'd be actually kind of fun to watch my own team get beat 115-2. In fact, out of sport, I would probably assist them in seeing just how high their score could go.
posted by aaronshaf at 2:53 PM on November 21, 2002


Color me completely ignorant, but *why* is it bad to kick ass in a sports competition? Isn't the point to win? Why should one team have to "weaken" itself to play against another?

Does this spring form some sort of "oh, let's not make our widdle chiwdwen feel bad" for losing philosophy?

I'm truly at a loss as to why a coach would weaken his own team, or encourage them to play less fiercely...doesn't make any sense to me . (disclaimer - i never played high school sports)
posted by tristeza at 2:56 PM on November 21, 2002


Girl's basketball? There had to be a looot of tears shed.

Yeah, b/c women are just a bunch of weak, snivelling, blathering idiots, huh?

**beats chest**

Me Man! Me No Cry!!

(btw, SportsFilter thread about this here)
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:56 PM on November 21, 2002


This kind of problem happens a lot in College Football. This past week my favorite team Alabama was dominating LSU. We didn't dominate them by passing, just continually running up the middle. During the 4th quarter when Alabama was up by a comfortable margin, we threw some passes that accidently resulted in a touchdown bomb (we're not a true passing team). This caused cries of "running up the score." This was confusing because, we didn't start passing the ball until we had put the game away.

(Yes, I refer to my team as 'we', because it's all about the lucky mojo.)
posted by Stan Chin at 2:59 PM on November 21, 2002


what's the complaint? that the winning team should have hobbled itself? ridiculous.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:00 PM on November 21, 2002


"Plus, this was a playoff game. What was that team even doing there?"

That's what I was thinking, too. A winless team in the playoffs? Who do they think they are, the NHL?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:00 PM on November 21, 2002


I agree with the winning coach. Was he supposed to tell the girls not to play? When the loser is held to a single basket, it's not that the winning team was that good, it's that the losing team sucked that badly.

I'd blame the losing coach. At the point when his team was getting trounced irrecoverably (50-2, maybe), he could have crossed the court an offered a forfeit.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:05 PM on November 21, 2002


Why the heck is a school of fifty people total not playing other small schools?

It's like if they matched up Miami with the Wheaton Thunder (Div. 3 team)
posted by RobbieFal at 3:05 PM on November 21, 2002


The article just gives a few details of what went on. With a lopsided score like that, my first thought was that the opposing team threw the game.

These lopsided games are the times when the coach should put in the 2nd and 3rd and 4th string players to give them a go at getting some time on the court. The coach did do that (he claims), as he had the freshmen promoted to varsity for the game.

THey didn't have too any other sources or witnesses in the article beyond the coach. It's a puff piece.
posted by deanc at 3:09 PM on November 21, 2002


This reminds me of a summer spent playing intramural Softball in grad school, among various departments. The Psychology dept was short on players, so they asked me to join (the Environmental Science dept didn't have a team). We lost every game we played, and we lost badly. Entomology, Geology, Chemistry, and even the Philosophy department kicked our asses in Softball.

But there was one game. We never practiced, but for some reason everything came together that day. We weren't dropping fly balls, grounders didn't go through anyone's legs, and our hitting was on fire. We were up for the first time all season, eventually by more than 10 runs. In the last inning, someone hit a line drive that got past their shortstop, and our loaded bases all came running home. The person that made the hit went for an inside-the-park homerun, but the throw was earlier than his running, and he took out the catcher with full force to score the run (the catcher dropped the ball). I felt bad as our team celebrated our win.

The catcher was hurt, the game ended, and later that night we found out the other team's bad play was due to them being all german postdoctoral physics researchers, who had never played baseball before.
posted by mathowie at 3:12 PM on November 21, 2002


It doesn't say so in the article, but i'm guessing that the winning school is a lot bigger than the enrollment of 50 from the losing team. It doesn't state that they don't but, this is why most state school athletic associations break up schools into divisions by enrollment numbers.

As long as the winning coach started putting in subs when they had a comfortable lead there really isn't much else that could've been done.
posted by jbelshaw at 3:15 PM on November 21, 2002


It's a puff piece.

Yeah, where are the hard-hitting investigating journalism pieces about blow-out high school girls basketball games? I mean, this was the Detroit playoffs!
posted by Nelson at 3:17 PM on November 21, 2002


BTW.. this reminds me of another High School stomping in the high agression world of Girls Basketball

District game..

Fort Osage High School 86
Van Horn High School 12

After 1: Fort. 23-2

Halftime: Fort Osage was up 49-4

after three: Fort. 72-10

Needless to say, Van Horn (in the Kansas City district) is not that good at any sports. Mainly because you can't play basketball if you are failing so many classes.

Maybe matching up lousy schools is an inevitable thing. If this was football and there was a record in sight, I'd run it up to get the record. Maybe even to break the GT/Cumberland record. Ha.
posted by RobbieFal at 3:17 PM on November 21, 2002


It is very hard know what to do in such a situation of disparity of power. I think the coach tried.

This used to happen quite a bit when I played soccer. Our team would just be in excess or the other teams, and the coach would do the same things. Our coach would hobble the team, switching up positions, insisting on limited touches on the ball, putting in lower strings. Sometimes though, that isn't enough.

What happens when you structure your team as bad as possible and you're still winning? Do you tell your players to just not score? Do you tell them to pass the ball to the other team whenever they get it? Do you just let the other team score?

To some people these further humblings would be more of an insult. Many people I know would become furious if the other side just tried to give them points or stopped playing. It isn't an easy line to draw.

The solution was stated earlier. These teams should never have been playing in the first place. Speaking of sportsmanship, where is the gracious loser?
posted by rudyfink at 3:17 PM on November 21, 2002


I think the real question is: Who is this girl that scored 2 points against a team that decimated her teammates? And when can we sign her to a lucrative sponsorship deal? If the other team scores 47 times the amount of points that you do, you've got to be pretty good to get 2 points out of them.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:18 PM on November 21, 2002


I remember fouling my way through games where it was clear we were going to get thoroughly trounced by a team we shouldn't have been matched against. If you know you can't win, that does free up a few playing options you wouldn't normally try.
posted by Salmonberry at 3:19 PM on November 21, 2002


If you came to play, play. It's a challenge. Not doing your best is disrespectful, not the other way around.
posted by tirade at 3:23 PM on November 21, 2002


Hey, y'all want to hear my sad, sad basketball story?

I played basketball for the city league in 6th grade. My team lost every game EXCEPT the one I couldn't go to because I was sick. I cried. Then I gave up basketball.

The End.
posted by sklero at 3:26 PM on November 21, 2002


i tend to have most fun when i'm playing a game where the teams are evenly matched. of course, since i've always played pick-up, if one team is 'too good', we just switch up some players. sports, for me, a casual player, tend to be more fun when it's a little less organized.


makes me wonder if they're going to kill skateboarding (the one 'sport' i did in high school) with all this coverage.

meh. not that i can skate worth poo anymore.


that said: any takers on a SF dodge ball team? what about CTF?
posted by fishfucker at 3:37 PM on November 21, 2002


Is sportsmanship about to go the way of the dodo?

Not in Ultimate, with the Spirit of the Game such an important part of play.

We played a league game on the weekend in which we lost 14-2, and had loads of fun.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 3:37 PM on November 21, 2002


I just finished my first season playing adult soccer. Our team finished 1-9.

Some games we were clobbered 7-0 and 5-1, etc. The opposing teams showed different levels of sportsmanship. One team, up 5-1, whined and cried every time a call went against them. Their play style was aggressive and physical and they did not back down even when they had clearly defeated us.

Another team beat us 5-0 but played with class and style, never complaining about the officiating, never making risky plays. They didn't sit back and relax, but they recognized they were thumping us and relaxed the pressure. We were grateful, believe me!

From reading the article about the girls' basketball game, the coach of the winning team made a moderate effort to keep things in hand. Even so, though: what does it matter so long as both sides are having fun and the game is played in a sporting manner? I don't mind losing a game badly as long as my opponents aren't jerks about it.
posted by jdroth at 3:43 PM on November 21, 2002


The Pittsburgh City League football champion (schools in the city school district are a division unto themselves) did not allow a point to be scored against them in any game this season including the league playoffs. The team that they beat in the league championship game had allowed 9 points all season, all field goals, never more than one in a game. Their one regular season loss came at the hands of the champs who won 3-0 in their matchup, the worst game for both teams.

Sometimes you will have teams that just click together like that. They know what they're doing defensively, offensively and they communicate well, and there's no reason why that should be discouraged at all. The only thing that they should not be alllowed to do is gloat over (which is different than celebrating) their success.

So I look at a score like this which says that one team didn't or couldn't even try, and I don't think answers should be demanded from the winners but from the coaches for the losers. How can they be so quick to say that the other side did something wrong by simply playing the game the way it was meant to be played? Maybe the smaller school did the wrong thing by not putting together a team that knew how to play the sport on a competitive level. Maybe they did the wrong thing by not teaching their players how to play the game competitively before fielding them against other schools. They were winless all season, and if they had an offense it never got a chance to show itself because they most assuredly had no defense. A team that has any grasp on the fundamentals of play would never get blown out that way, no matter how small the school it represented, and that's not anyone else's fault.

It's a sad thing for the girls who lost, but any fingers of blame need to point squarely back at the adults who put them into the situation to begin with.

Girl's basketball? There had to be a looot of tears shed.

Yeah, because only girls cry when they lose. I guess MLB better institute gender testing, because I swear I saw a bunch of people in Giants uniforms weeping like little babies after the World Series.
posted by Dreama at 4:01 PM on November 21, 2002


Many amateur and school leagues have mercy rules where the game is called after a certain point spread. If anything, it relieves the boredom and gets everyone home earlier. I think that would have been the preference of both teams in this case.
posted by PrinceValium at 4:05 PM on November 21, 2002


As noted, it's better to run up a score then to let the other team score. In Oregon, high school football imposes fines if you win by more than 45. In one my school's games when I was in high school, my school was up something like 80-0 in the 3rd, JV team in, and eventually they just had to kneel down 4 times and give the other team the ball. I think it still ended in a shutout. There's not much you can do in these situations - one team got clobbered, they're not in the same league of talent, all there is to it.
posted by Kevs at 4:23 PM on November 21, 2002


I don't see the sportsmanship in pity or mercy. The object of the game is to score as many baskets as possible and prevent the other team from scoring. As long as they played without gloating they were sportsmanlike. Good for them.
posted by neuroshred at 4:24 PM on November 21, 2002


I agree with neuroshred. Those who seek "mercy" in sports are unclear on the concept. If you get beat badly in a game, you can a) decide you were "out of your league" and shouldn't have scheduled such a game, b) realize you have a lot of work to do to become competitive and be motivated to work harder, c) shrug it off as a bad day, which everyone has. Whining that the other team was a bunch of meanies should not be an option.

It's just a game.
posted by rushmc at 4:37 PM on November 21, 2002


My younger sister plays basketball, their team is not that good. In fact they suck. And since we live in a small country, they often have to play against vastly superior teams if they want to play at all, these kind of results are pretty common. They do win occasionally, but mostly they just lose badly. I don't think it's that awful, since they keep on playing season after season. It's sports, the other team is supposed to lose.
posted by lazy-ville at 4:45 PM on November 21, 2002


That's what I was thinking, too. A winless team in the playoffs? Who do they think they are, the NHL?

I don't know how it works there, but I remember in Illinois, every high school basketball team got into the playoffs.
posted by gyc at 4:48 PM on November 21, 2002


Those who seek "mercy" in sports are unclear on the concept

no kidding. are you telling me the losing coach couldn't have emphasized the need to take some charges, and generate a few blocking calls, just so the team could get to the line and score some points? maybe design an inbound play or two, to get the ball to your best shooter? the coach totally gave up on his (her?) team, and i find that, along with the administrative whinging, to be the offensive part of the story.

also, if that girl in the sweatbands doesn't wipe that smirk off her face, the next time she comes flying into the lane will be her last.
posted by lescour at 5:02 PM on November 21, 2002


My daughter's soccer team (all first year players) just finished their season 0-9. They were pummeled every time by other teams who were more experienced or simply better than they were. By the way - not once did I ever see any of these 8 and 9 year old girls cry. Their final game of the season was another loss, 7-0, but they finally scored their first goal! All of the parents (including myself) were jumping up and down and screaming and the girls were ecstatic. The other team thought we had all lost our minds. When it was over, no one said a word about losing, only that they had finally scored a goal. When the score got really high in a few of the games this season, the other coach removed players, it never really helped our team and the girls seemed to be bothered by it, but I can appreciate that the coach's intentions were good. The blame definitely lies squarely on whoever scheduled these two basketball teams to play though. Regular season is one thing, but playoffs are another thing entirely, although maybe it was a case of what gyc described, all teams played...
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 5:04 PM on November 21, 2002


You'll note from the article that the league recently eliminated the rule that called the game after a certain number of points were scored and the spread was maintained for a certain amount of time. The rule was originally there to spare humiliation of a weaker team.

The intention was to allow the coaches' more freedom. Specifically, freedom to try different strategies, such as putting weaker players into the game. As we've all noted, the winning coach did just this.

However IMO, the bottom line is that losing by a huge margin is (and don't hate me for using this phrase) a life lesson for the girls on the 2 point team. Sometimes you lose and you lose big. How you handle the big loss (or, for that matter, big win) is what matters.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:05 PM on November 21, 2002


organized sports seem to teach and encourage all the worst qualities into kids at their most impressionable age. i'm feeling the kids who got routed by 113 points will do okay in life, the winners of this game, not so sure.. the more unfair and cruel teasing you have to endure the earlier, the better.

that said, competition is fun!! kicking a teams ass is fun!! WHY IS NO ONE BLAMING COLUMBINE FOR THIS??
posted by Peter H at 5:14 PM on November 21, 2002


whiners.
posted by MCBenC at 5:21 PM on November 21, 2002


"Their final game of the season was another loss, 7-0, but they finally scored their first goal!"

Umm...Woolcott'sKindredGal, could I interest you in a second-hand abacus?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:25 PM on November 21, 2002


Okay, let's try another tangent. What does it say about the players themselves? Surely a team captain could influence her teammates to just dribble and pass a while. Go ahead and run the plays, but not take the shots. Yeah, competitive instincts are grand and all that, but that same instinct should tell you when enough is enough, regardless of the crowd or coach...
posted by GT_RULES at 6:06 PM on November 21, 2002


whiners.

could you supply a link with that? i only like posts with links.
posted by Peter H at 6:18 PM on November 21, 2002


When the score got really high in a few of the games this season, the other coach removed players, it never really helped our team and the girls seemed to be bothered by it

I don't blame them. No one with any dignity likes to be patronized.

The rule was originally there to spare humiliation of a weaker team.

One is only humiliated if one chooses to be. No one can *force* you to feel humiliated if you have a heathy attitude and laugh it off and get on with your life.

How you handle the big loss (or, for that matter, big win) is what matters.

Hear, hear.

What does it say about the players themselves?

It says that they did what they had trained to do, what they were expected to do, and what they had come to do: play ball. Good on 'em. Next time they may find themselves on the other end: that's life.
posted by rushmc at 6:24 PM on November 21, 2002


In pro football (unlike college football, where the exact score is important for ranking purposes), there is absolutely no question that this would be viewed as bad sportsmanship. I remember there was some controversy a few years back in a Green Bay/Dallas game where Dallas was winning 18 to 3 in the final seconds and needed one more field goal to set the NFL record for most field goals in a game. They drove down the field to try for the field goal when they could have just knelt and killed the clock. The Packers players went ballistic, fights broke out, and the Cowboys were widely condemned for poor sportsmanship. The same thing happened in preseason this year, where the Redskins drove down the field to score a touchdown against the 49s in the final seconds despite the fact that they were already winning by a huge margin. Like the Cowboys a few years back, the Redskins were condemned for poor sportsmanship.

I'm not sure whether this translates to basketball, since different sports have different definitions of what is sportsmanlike conduct. For example, effusive celebrations after a big play is fine in football, but is viewed as unsporting in baseball. Also, an important difference between football and basketball is that football teams can grind out the clock without scoring by simply running up the middle every down. It's not so simple in basketball which is faster moving and has a shot clock.
posted by boltman at 6:30 PM on November 21, 2002


Those who seek "mercy" in sports are unclear on the concept.

I'm not sure what sports y'all follow, but running up the score in a blowout situation is commonly frowned upon in most team sports, especially the NFL.

This is not some recent development, it was taught to my little league baseball and football teams 20 years ago as just one part of sportsmanship.

On preview: As a Packer fan since birth and a Redskin follower by current proximity, I remember both.
posted by probablysteve at 6:40 PM on November 21, 2002


boltman...similarly, in an NFL game this year (I don't remember who it was exactly), an interception was made on the last play of the game and the guy who made the pick had a clear lane to the endzone, but he just stepped out of bounds. The pass was the last play of the game and his team was winning, so why run up the score?

As for the last second touchdown for the Skins, there's the famous "Fumble" in college ball - I think it was Baylor. They were up by 3 and tried to punch the ball in for another TD on the last play just to show that they could...result, fumble, 101 yard return. UNLV wins.

Here's a description of that one.
posted by Kevs at 6:46 PM on November 21, 2002


mathowie wins by a blowout. Best story this thread.
posted by mojohand at 7:06 PM on November 21, 2002


I agree with the sentiment that you should do you darnest when competing in sports in respect of your opponents. However, sports aren't about the competition itself it's about having fun competing. There is no reason to humiliate the opposition.

Almost ten years ago my local soccer club Copenhagen met with Italian AC Milan in the play-offs. AC Milan was at that time arguably the best team in the world with players like Paolo Maldini, Zvonomir Boban, Jean-Pierre Papin, Franco Baresi, Alessandro Costacurta, Christian Panucci and Dimetrio Albertini while Copenhagen was a brand new club with no international stars. Copenhagen was severely overmatched and after about five minutes of play the Italians had already scored two goals. When the Italians were leading with 6 goals to nothing, they decided that enough was enough and played non-aggressively for the remainder of the game. The Italians scored a massive win, yet they could have humilated the Danes even further, but decided not to - it wouldn't have achieved anything. That proves that there is such a thing as sportsmanship even on the highest level of professional sports.
posted by cx at 7:42 PM on November 21, 2002


I've played soccer in teams that have won by massive margins and lost by massive margins. I once scored five goals in the first half only to be taken off the field at halftime because I was too much of a match for the opposing players. It was no big deal. It was just a game. I personally believe that losing is ultimately more rewarding than winning. To win any game in a walkover doesn't prove how good you are. It just proves your opponents are no good.
posted by skinsuit at 7:56 PM on November 21, 2002


Kevs: I hadn't heard about the fumble you mentioned (don't really follow college ball), although it was surely the work of the football gods. The interception where the defender stepped out of bounds was in the Buffalo - Miami game last month. TMQ mentioned it in his column a few weeks ago:

Pure-class play of the day: In the closing seconds of a 23-10 game, Buffalo linebacker Eddie Robinson intercepted beleaguered Marine Mammals quarterback Ray Lucas. Robinson ran the ball back to the Miami 18 and then stepped out of bounds, though he had blockers and a path to six. The 11-year veteran said afterward he didn't want to embarrass his opponent. Huh? What? Tapes of this should be sent to Randy Moss, Owens, "Dobby" Spurrier, etc.
posted by boltman at 8:16 PM on November 21, 2002


Blowouts are no fun for either team.

When you realize that you aren't able to put up a decent effort, or that the other team isn't going to provide even the smallest amount of resistance, then it's just damn boring.

I think the coach of the losing team should have offered a forfeit at half time. Then mix the players from both teams up and have them play the second half as a friendly intra-squad game. The better team gets some competition (against each other) and the lesser team can get some practise and fun playing WITH better players.

I mean, it was high school basketball. There isn't any money involved, these aren't professional athletes, and the only adults are the coaches and officials. Just have fun.
posted by grum@work at 8:19 PM on November 21, 2002


As far as the sportsmanship question goes, I think the coach and the winning team did what they could. Subs were sent in - players who came up from the freshman and jv teams. They didn't play their normal defense, and I'm certain they didn't full-court the losing team. The coach made rules for when they could attempt a shot. There's not much more you can do, really.

If the losing coach wanted to, he could have conceded the game at halftime. And maybe he suggested that, but his players said they wanted to keep playing. But his team's inability to score more than one basket (or two free throws) does not equal bad sportsmanship on the part of the winning team.

I've been on both sides of a blowout like this. Admittedly none of them had a 113 point difference, but a couple were close. Yes, losing like that sucks, but there's really nothing you can do afterward but move on. I always turned it into a chip to carry around with me, so I'd constantly push myself harder in practice so it wouldn't happen again. And sometimes, winning like that is just embarrassing. I always felt bad for the other team. My coach never knew what to tell us after a huge win. "Way to score ten points in the first quarter, Emmalee, but next time don't make a bounce pass on the perimeter" just doesn't sound right.

I seem to remember, in my senior year in high school, reports of a game (possibly in Texas?) with a score somewhat similar to this. The losing team, it was said, had their tallest player listed at 5'2". Which means, in reality, she was 5'0" at the most. Does anyone else remember hearing of this?

And my favorite example of professional sportsmanship? Paolo Di Canio.
posted by emmling at 8:24 PM on November 21, 2002


Also, an important difference between football and basketball is that football teams can grind out the clock without scoring by simply running up the middle every down. It's not so simple in basketball which is faster moving and has a shot clock.

One of many reasons that basketball is vastly superior to football.

There is no reason to humiliate the opposition.

Again, the notion that losing by 20 points is just fine but losing by 40 points is a "humiliation" is nutty. Losing is losing.
posted by rushmc at 9:00 PM on November 21, 2002


And handicapping yourselves to hedge the degree to which you're destroying your opponent is going to humiliate them as well. The message changes from "we're kicking your butts" to "we're kicking your butts with one hand tied behind our backs, and we feel just awful about it, kiddo."
posted by cortex at 9:34 PM on November 21, 2002


Wow. We have some hardcore people on Mefi. I don't see, though, how being defeated 115-2 teaches kids about life in the quote-unquote real world. In real life, if you were constantly getting kicked in the shins, a survival instinct would kick in, and you'd leave or change (or keep a low profile) or die. Also, you'd do good to try to learn to play guitar, and work up some good blues songs. In this game, the humiliation just kept going and going and going, like some satanic version of the Energizer Bunny. What are the kids supposed to be learning here, how to deal with a future akin to life in the old Jim Crow South or the former Soviet Union? That's a lot to ask of a recreational activity.

Also, should athletic associations set up more completely mismatched sporting events so kids everywhere can get this kind of golden experience?
posted by raysmj at 10:48 PM on November 21, 2002


One of many reasons that basketball is vastly superior to football.

must...not...derail...thread

**grudgingly deletes devestating response conclusively proving that football is the greatest sport ever invented**
posted by boltman at 10:49 PM on November 21, 2002


Our Niners sure showed Spurrier and those Redskins in the regular season. Ahahahaha.
posted by swank6 at 11:59 PM on November 21, 2002


Wow, I agree with the folks that have posted, but I think y'all are a bit hardcore. This is basketball, and scoring one field goal (I assume) vs that many points is not even a game. I wouldn't want to match this against even the worst blowout in football (American) or soccer where the gameplay is completely different. A team can do something and be shutout of those games, but scoring 2 points in basketball is a fucking joke and the losing team should have ended it if that's what it took.

Generally I agree with y'all, though. And pro players deserve more abuse. Pro baseball players want similar consideration despite the fact that our Mariners blew a 12 point (?) lead last year.
posted by Wood at 2:06 AM on November 22, 2002


It's because a close game is a good game. It's no fun to have your ass handed to you, and it's not much more fun to do the ass-handing. This is what systems like swiss draw, seeding, and so forth are for.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:32 AM on November 22, 2002


It's no fun to have your ass handed to you, and it's not much more fun to do the ass-handing.

No system produces fun all the time. (Many would argue that it's not much "fun" to lose by one point on a last second shot in double overtime, either. It all depends on your perspective.)
posted by rushmc at 6:39 AM on November 22, 2002


The real questions is, did Walkerville cover the spread?
posted by uftheory at 6:39 AM on November 22, 2002


Pardon me mr._crash_davis. 0-7. Jesus H. Christ.
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 9:30 AM on November 22, 2002


whatever. i played on a team in grade school that routinely made the news for scoring over 100 points a game. the other team rarely scored over 20 points. when we were high shool age we were all sent to the same high shool - a private catholic school that was currently numer one in the state. we continued to beat the other teams by ridiculous amounts of points. (look up the records broken in basketall by immaculate heart of mary from 1987-1991 to see what i'm talking about.)

i have a theory on this. some schools take women's sports seriously, some don't. if we did't crack 100 points in a game, we had to run 35 to 60 laps afterwards - so we always did our best to score in the triple digits. compare this to the teams we played against - where first string point guards would dribble on their feet and the coaches would treat them like they were athletic superstars.

back i the 80's we were an anomaly in the world of girls sports. i'm glad to see that other girls teams joining the party.
posted by copper at 4:34 PM on November 22, 2002


« Older Today is The Great American Smokeout....  |  Stringing broadband connection... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments