Winning coach in 100-0 victory fired

Yahoo/CBS11 ^ | 1-26-09

[GeronL]

DALLAS (CBS) ―

The coach of a Texas high school basketball team that beat another team 100-0 reportedly was fired Sunday, the same day he sent an e-mail to a newspaper stating he will not apologize "for a wide-margin victory when my girls played with honor and integrity" and posted a detailed explanation on a hoops Web site.

The Covenant School girls basketball coach Coach Micah Grimes, along with girls from his team, released a statement on the website of the Flight Basketball Academy.

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 Grimes' e-mail disagreeing with administrators who called the blowout "shameful."

[Polybius]

My worst players would have played the majority of the game

Note that, if other articles are correct, the Covenant team also has only 8 players. Therefore, there's no difference between 'playing the 5 worst players for the majority of the game', and 'leaving in two of the starters for the majority of the game', right?

Let me check out the arithmetic.

By golly, you're right!

So, THAT explains why they had the full-court press and were shooting three point shots during the fourth quarter while they were leading by 70, 80 or 90 points. The worst players were never taught to shoot anything except three pointers and they never learned any defense except the full court press.

No matter how you slice it, it was an utter lack of class and sportsmanship.

Afterward, when the Coach publicly shot down the apology that his employer thought fit to make, it was an utter lack of brains.

Publicly and deliberately humiliating kids makes the guy a jerk.

Publicly and deliberately humiliating his employer makes him an idiot ..... an unemployed idiot.

[Mariebl]

So, THAT explains why they had the full-court press and were shooting three point shots during the fourth quarter while they were leading by 70, 80 or 90 points.

I have no way of knowing if the coach is telling the truth, but he's said that they dropped the full-court press and went to zone defense early. Is there any chance that they could have been taking three-point shots because they were running out the clock? After all, it's a lower-probability shot, or so I've been told, so if you're poorly positioned as the clock runs out, you shoot from where-ever you are. Or do you feel that it was unsportsmanlike of them to try to shoot baskets at all?

[P-Marlowe]

Is there any chance that they could have been taking three-point shots because they were running out the clock?

There are no shot clocks in high school. They could have eased up when the score was 30-0 and used the opportunity to just practice dribbling and passing. If your team is really really good, then you have to put the ball up at least 75-80 times to score 100 points in a high school game.

And IIRC, in girls high school basketball you have 2 20 minutes halves, which means this team had to take a shot at the basket at least once every 30 seconds including the time the other teams had posession of the ball.

I suspect that Covenant took at least one shot every 20 seconds. There is no way this team could score 100 points and not be trying to humiliate the other team.

[Aurorales]

A true story and my opinion to add to the mix.
(or my 2cents)

My son is a competitive fencer.
When he was a lot younger and very new to the sport, he competed in his first tournament. (Where he got his butt kicked)

Anyway, the last kid he fenced that day was much better than him. (The first person to reach 15 touches wins the bout.) This better fencer was beating my son pretty badly. Something like 13 to 0 at one point. This kid then takes it upon himself to “give” my son some free points. Obviously letting my son get 2 free touches. I guess to make him feel better.

First off, it really pissed off my son. (Good for him). He was taught to earn what he received.
Second, the small crowd of onlookers proceeded to boo the better fencer. Myself included.
In fencing, giving someone touches they didn't really win is very wrong.

My son has never forgotten what that “better fencer” did that day.
I have seen my son completely whip someones butt. But he respects his opponents enough to not demean or ridicule them.

Why would a team or individual want something they didn't really earn or deserve?
I would rather lose, accept and learn from the defeat, than be further embarrassed by charity.

[don'tbedenied]

I don’t know anything about the customs and ethics of fencing, so I take your word on it. I do know basketball. 100-0 is disgraceful.

[Polybius]

Is there any chance that they could have been taking three-point shots because they were running out the clock? After all, it's a lower-probability shot, or so I've been told, ....

There is a much more effective tactic for intentionally running out the clock:

It's called "dribbling".

Since it seems the other team could not get a rebound if their life depended on it, a missed three pointer would have merely reset the time on the shot clock after the rebound.

Stopping short to shoot a three on a fast break is NOT something you do to "run out the clock". It is what a classless team does to "run up the score" when the score is already 74-0.

Or do you feel that it was unsportsmanlike of them to try to shoot baskets at all?

What part of "the Coach was yelling for them to break 100 points" do you have a problem understanding?

Against semi-handicapped kids that had not been able to score a single basket.

As long as you are intentionally humiliating them, why not have your cheerleaders and your crowd chant:

REEEEE - TAAAAARDS!

REEEEE - TAAAAARDS!

REEEEE - TAAAAARDS!

I am truly flabbergasted that the basics of Sportsmanship seem to be a foreign concept to some people on this thread.

Even in the NFL, if a team is winning 38 to 3 with two minutes left in the game and the team that is winning has taken over the ball on downs and has a first and goal with the ball on the five yard line, such a team will show class and sportsmanship, not by trying to get the ball into the end-zone, but by "taking a knee" four times if necessary.

That is called "the Victory Formation" and it is used by those teams that have class.

"When the Great Scorer comes to mark against your name,
He writes not that you won or lost, but how you played the Game."

[Mariebl]

What part of "the Coach was yelling for them to break 100 points" do you have a problem understanding?

Thank you for your exquisite courtesy in reminding me of that. I've heard it as a rumor, but am not sure if it is true or not. If true, obviously it would be classless and disgraceful.

Have I misunderstood how the shot clock works? My understanding was that you were supposed to take a shot before the clock ran out. So, if you kept possession of the ball until the last possible second, and then shot, wouldn't you end up taking shots from less than advantageous positions, aka three-point territory?

[Polybius]

the last kid he fenced that day was much better than him. (The first person to reach 15 touches wins the bout.) This better fencer was beating my son pretty badly. Something like 13 to 0 at one point. This kid then takes it upon himself to “give” my son some free points. Obviously letting my son get 2 free touches. I guess to make him feel better. First off, it really pissed off my son. (Good for him). He was taught to earn what he received. Second, the small crowd of onlookers proceeded to boo the better fencer. Myself included. In fencing, giving someone touches they didn't really win is very wrong. My son has never forgotten what that “better fencer” did that day. I have seen my son completely whip someones butt. But he respects his opponents enough to not demean or ridicule them.

In fencing, like in tennis, the winner of the bout is determined by a certain number of points without a time limit.

What if fencing were scored by the highest score achieved within 15 minutes and your son's opponent made a point to score as much and as fast as he possibly could to run up a huge score against your son?

Is such conduct not specifically designed to "demean or ridicule him"?

In un-timed sports, a certain score must be reached and giving away points in both timed and un-timed sports is considered condescending.

In timed sports, unnecessarily running up the score has traditionally been considered low class and unsportsmanlike.

[Polybius]

Have I misunderstood how the shot clock works? My understanding was that you were supposed to take a shot before the clock ran out. So, if you kept possession of the ball until the last possible second, and then shot, wouldn't you end up taking shots from less than advantageous positions, aka three-point territory?

If you actually were to wait until the last second to shoot, you could rationalize it in such a manner.

However, as another poster pointed out, in order to score 100 points in a high school game, you have to be shooting as fast as you can. Such a high score and a "ball control" game are mutually exclusive.

[Mariebl]

There are no shot clocks in high school. They could have eased up when the score was 30-0 and used the opportunity to just practice dribbling and passing.

Now, I'm definitely ignorant on this subject. I rummaged in Google, and it looks like you're right--there are no shot clocks in Texas high school basketball, although some other states have them. So, that certainly opens up plenty of possibilities for keeping the score low.

Is it really sportsmanlike, though, to treat your opponents as being completely unworthy of your efforts, so that you don't even try to play the game as a game, you simply use the other team as fodder for a practice session? I'm not trying to be nasty here; that's a serious question.

[Captain Peter Blood]

I have watched some of the posts on this thread and I am amazed that there is this level of discussion on a minor league girls basketball game.
This kind of stuff happens, tell me just what is the coach supposed to do when all he has is 8 players?
Now I have yet to see any questions on the coach and the team that lost.
Is here any doubt that that team was poorly coached and did not show up to play?
People get real, we have got alot more important and pressing problems that the outcome of girl's basketball game.

[Aurorales]

In fencing, like in tennis, the winner of the bout is determined by a certain number of points without a time limit.
_____________________________________________

You are wrong.
Fencing also has a time limit.

Fencing isn't about running up the score. It is about hitting and not getting hit.

The bout is over when a fencer reaches 15. But a clock is running.
If a fencer is ahead when time runs out, he wins.

I understand not acting like an arrogant winner. In fencing you are disqualified very easily for ungentlemanly conduct.

But, “low class” in sports (in my opinion) includes expecting your opponent to hold back or let you get something which is not rightly earned.

To me the rules of fencing are pure. As most know, it is based on the real activity of sword fighting.
Would you ever let someone have a “free” touch on you if they were holding a real blade? Or would you hold back on your “win” just to let the opponent “feel good”?
If you did either of these two things, you just might be killed.

I know basketball isn't fencing, but someone will win, and someone will lose. There are no charity points.

[aruanan]

Is it really sportsmanlike, though, to treat your opponents as being completely unworthy of your efforts, so that you don't even try to play the game as a game, you simply use the other team as fodder for a practice session? I'm not trying to be nasty here; that's a serious question.

To hold back is bad sportsmanship. The purpose of the game is the playing of the game, not using the playing of the game to make sure the other team doesn't feel too bad about losing or to take a dive so the other team can feel good about winning. If someone's best isn't good enough, losing will demonstrate this to them. I'd hope the parents of the winning team would hire a lawyer on behalf of the coach and show the people who fired him what losing really means.

[Aurorales]

I completely agree with your above response.
Losing is a very important lesson. I would hate to think what kind of person I would be if I didn’t learn from my loses.

[P-Marlowe]

I would hate to think what kind of person I would be if I didn’t learn from my loses.

I guess you never lost a spelling bee.

[Thumper1960]

I sense a twisted form of “Darwinism” where the strongest survive and the weak are allowed to be pummeled until they drop. How the linkage of capitalism and intramural sports is achieved, I am not quite sure.

[Thumper1960]

From what I have read on this and other sites, the losing team couldn’t have stopped their opponent from running straight up the lane if they tried. Meaning that there was an equal or better chance of scoring, even from the inside.

[Thumper1960]

A couple of alleged Christian schools get together to play a basketball game. Now, if I am wrong, correct me. Didn't Christ say something to the effect of 'how you treat the least of my children, so too do you treat me'?

Perhaps a few of the observers would have added their own kicks, stabs and spear thrusts against Him after He was on the cross. After all, He was already "lost".

[Aurorales]

Thanks.

loses=losses

You actually proved one of my points.

I have a feeling I won’t misspell that word anytime soon.
Lesson learned.

[Aurorales]

There is no way this team could score 100 points and not be trying to humiliate the other team.
________________________________________________

You are quite the mind-reader.

Maybe on Superbowl Sunday someone can hire you to tell us whether the winning team is attempting to humiliate the losing team, or just trying to win.

If you can’t beat the team by points, the next best thing is to make the winner feel guilty for winning.

(or if you can’t prove your point with facts, the next best thing is to point out the spelling errors)