That's a great example for the losers. Next time my daughter gets whooped in a wrestling match I will explain to her that her opponent shouldn't have respected her or treated her as an equal, but instead should have treated her like a "little baby" and let her win. That would have been the progressive thing to do!

I think a better solution would be a rematch where the other teams wins 100-0. I don't know how to accomplish that except to tell the team that won to "suck really bad". I guess it is worth it if we reach our desired goal of "Equal outcomes".

If I were coacing I would have done more...perhaps 200 to 0. In sports there is no place for compassion...it's either beat or be beaten...there's no shame in either.

Americans really do have a twisted society...they demand excellence and when they get it they like to destroy it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/012609dnspocovenantnu.2781526.html

The link goes to the South Park article.

This seems like good foreshadowing for the Damon vs. Kristol throwdown.

not stirred

It reminds me of the New England Patriots last year. They were being criticized early for running up the score on opponents; then, when the were winning by small margins the same critics were asking "What is wrong with the Pats".

Could you imagine if we criticized boxers who are great finishers (ie Roy Jones Jr.) for not letting up when they are dominating their opponents? The whole thing is ludicrous.

Thanks, Kyla. My best cut/paste intentions are sometimes thwarted.

Would you have your kids run up the score? Against a team of kids with learning disabilities that has reportedly never won a game? This is supposed to be a Christian school?

Hats off to the school for saying this is wrong. I coach kids and play myself in several sports. I can't imagine what this coach was thinking, he must be so proud, what a jackass.

When I heard this story on the news I think they said something about the losing team having a lot of special needs kids who have never won a game. I think that was the reason for the controversy, not just the whuppin'. I notice the story doesn't mention this, maybe i got it wrong.

Typical lefty BS.
Lefties would have made Donovan Bailey run the 100m with 50lbs on his back lest his superior physical prowess cause the other runners to suffer damage to their self esteem.

Indiana,

You hit the keyword. An athlete or team either dominates or is dominated...that's the definition of sport. A team that starts to let up puts itself in the dangerous position of going into an unstoppable lethargic funk.

Sports pundits are the biggest losers going...I couldn't care less about what they say or think. They actually take the enjoyment out of sport with their nonsensical nattering.

Who was the idiot that set up the match in the first place? They are the ones that should be fired.Do the Dallas Cowboys play high school teams? NO! Besides,Dallas has better cheer leaders making it doubly unfair.

Here's the apology.

http://www.flightbasketball.com/100-0-Texas-Game-Response-From-Coach.html

"Typical lefty BS"

How in God's name does this have anything to do with socialist political philosophy? Anyone who has participated in team sports knows that humiliating the opponent is not the object. You play hard. You do what you have to to win, because winning matters, but you don't dishonour your team by making a show of your opponents. That's a very unconservative thing to do. Anything goes, honour and decency and tradition don't matter - aren't these typically qualities that are supposed to be associated with the "lefties"?

Meh.

We have an autistic child.

I'll beat him at a game on the Wii and then tell him he has to practice and earn his wins.

Shortly after he'll whip my butt.

I could care less. He learned the valuable lesson about life.

FWIW, the other coach could have forfeited when it was getting obviously lopsided.

I'm with the turtle. In a game against a team of kids with learning disabilities? Where was the coach's class? Pretty sad to see a coach being that self-centered.

Seems to me they should have switched up the teams after it was 30-0.

"you don't dishonour your team by making a show of your opponents"

To me it would be far more dishonouring if the other team started taking it easy one my team. Plus the only way you can get better is to go up against those who outmatch you. That's why I prefer chess against stronger opponents. Also it feels really good when playing someone who is master level or higher and you manage to pull out a win after a long string of losses! One victory against a strong opponent feels so much better than a string of victories against mediocre ones, even if you had to endure a string of ignominious defeats to get there.

Sports is supposed to help teach character. When you're playing an exhibition game against a team of special needs kids and you win by 100 points to zero I'd would say you don't have much character. I loved playing sports and I understand the concept of winning and losing. Practicing everyday. The struggle to be the best. I get that. I agree whole heartedly with it. But you have to be able to resist putting the boot in just because you can.

Nice examples, folks.

Running a full court press in the fourth quarter while you're up by a ridiculous amount is not only counter to all aspects of sportsmanship, it's embarrassing.

This isn't the Olympics. It's highschool sports, in which a team of undermanned learning disabled girls took to the court against a much stronger opposition.

The proper thing to do would be to win, but win graciously.

To sum up, a lot of you would rather the kids at the small school quit playing intraschool sports rather than the winning team let up a bit and show some respect for their competitors as human beings.

For the record, I'm a former high-level baseball player, highschool basketball and volleyball player, baseball and basketball coach.

If one of my kids (or teammates), up by 60-odd points, were to throw up a three-pointer or put on a fullcourt press, I'd chew them out in public.

I'll ask all you who support this embarrassment one question:

What *positives* can the winning team take away from this game after their 100-0 win?

"FWIW, the other coach could have forfeited when it was getting obviously lopsided.

So, you don't believe in sportsmanship, but instead you'd have the other team quit. Little upside-down, don't you think?

Why are these teams even in the same division? Perhaps the honchos at the losing school need to take some responsibility for putting their kids in position to fail so miserably.

This item is all over the news down here at the Center of the Universe.

My position is that the trustees of the school exercised their freedom to run their PRIVATE school as they see fit. If you aren't funding the school's operation, it's none of your damn business. End of story.

Here is the losing team's schedule:

http://www.hsgametime.com/dfw/schoolinfo.htm?propertyId=1&sportId=7&schoolId=1113&infoType=schedule

Sp far, they have lost each game they have played by a huge margin:

55 - 6
66 - 4
49 - 7
100 - 0

Should the other 3 winning coaches also be fired ?

That was exactly my thought Saskatoon Guy.

There are reasons that one legged sprinters compete in their own games and not against fully able runners. The primary reason being Common Dog.

If you can't swim, stay out of the water. If you drown don't blame the fish.

The coach was rightfully fired.

Running up the score, in high school sports is wrong.

Why are these teams even in the same division? Perhaps the honchos at the losing school need to take some responsibility for putting their kids in position to fail so miserably.

"Covenant, which plays larger out-of-district schools, is 6-3 this season and undefeated in its Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools district."

Utopia is built by one imaginary brick at a time.

If you lose by 100 to nothing on the scoreboard, you win.
Covenant forfeit the game!?
Dallas gets their first win in four years because.... they really really really suck.

I predict the Dallas team goes on to win the championship without ever scoring a point.
Hell why even show up for games, just hire a blind chimp for a bus driver, a kleptomaniac equipment manger, and a leftard for media relations.

You might be a leftard if you find yourself rooting for a Harlem Globetrotters' tie.

I have a good friend who is both an exceptional chess player and an incredible pool player. I'm neither. When he offers to take his queen off the board or play me left handed, I refuse and say "bring it on". In terms of skill, I'm Dallas Academy. If you asked those kids if they wanted the other school to let up on them, what do you think they'd say?

Couple of points...

First. There are not many schools around that are purely for disabled kids. So if a group of disabled kids wants to play a sport and compete against another school, they are typically going to be against schools with teams that are much better than them. Yes, you will lose every game...BIG. But can you teach the kids how to play a sport and learn something about sportsmanship along the way? Sure. The disabled team played several other schools, and those schools played restrained defense and managed to only win by about 50 pts, while actually allowing them to score a few points. The winning team got to learn something about being good sports to an obviously overmatched team, and the losers weren't humiliated.

Second, the objection in this case was not to the final score, but to the way the winning team played the game. Apparently a very disproportionate number of the points scored were on steals by the player defending the disabled school's point guard as the PG was bringing the ball up the court, that resulted in layups. They never even gave the girls a chance to play...just steal...layup...steal...layup. Dialing back the aggression of the defense would have changed the whole tone of the game, without changing the final outcome. It would have been very simple for the coach to tell his own guards to not go for the steal when the PG was bringing the ball up the floor, but to just defend passes and shots. It wouldn't take away the competitive nature of the game, but it would have slowed down the scoring and given the disabled girls a fighting chance to at least score a few points.

Think about it this way...when you play 1 on 1 with your kid in the driveway, you could beat him or her 100-0 easily right? But you don't...why? You sandbag a little...you let him score a few points, you let him get off shots that you could easily have blocked. Why? And after you answer that, then go back and try to convince yourself that the winning team shouldn't have had the same motivations in not going out and humiliating a bunch of girls with disabilities.

How in God's name does this have anything to do with socialist political philosophy?
[...]
Anything goes, honour and decency and tradition don't matter - aren't these typically qualities that are supposed to be associated with the "lefties"?
~Occam's Carbuncle

Socialist political philosophy is all about equality of outcome regardless of merit and hard work. Socialists want a classless society after emphasizing a class struggle.

If the opposition was outclassed, too bad, they have a sports program but shouldn't have a basket ball team.

The winners merited their win, the losers deserved their loss. Having learning difficulties isn't the same as being mentally handicapped. This has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian values.

It's unfortunate that in the "feel good" environment that exists around disabled kids, the disabled kids themselves are overlooked. Can you imagine what it would be like to be one of the disabled kids and have to read the stuff about how bad the team that beat you was because they didn't let you make more plays? It's like the people that discuss children with them in the room, that somehow the kids in the room can't hear the conversation. Makes me gag. Like the people don't exist.

Talk about fueling the fire of insecurity and self doubt.

Thx, Tex.

It's unfortunate that in the "feel good" environment that exists around disabled kids, the disabled kids themselves are overlooked.
Posted by: Pat

The children at Dallas Academy are not disabled.
They have learning difficulties such as dyslexia.

My wife has dyslexia, is one of the most intelligent women I have ever met, and earns a six figure income.

Yukon

My basket-ball team is 2-8 but that's a different story.

For all we know the score could have been 130-0. This coach was in a no win situation. Would 85-0 be better? Probably, if it was 99-0 this wouldn't have been an issue, but like the 100th Canadian troop fatality there is the perception of something more than the previous 99. I personally don't think that the winning team is under any obligation to let the other team have open shots. You let the pedal off the metal offensively but you never relent defensively. You can change from press to passive or from man to zone but you still have to try. It is much more insulting to contribute a half-assed effort because of superiority. My 9 yr old daughter demands a 100% effort from me when we play chess and she hasn't won yet.

IMO if the blame(which I don't think is necessary) must fall somewhere it should fall on the league and or the losing teams coach. In our soft-ball league a team forfeits if they fall behind by 15pts and the coach "throws in" the towel if their athlete is being dominated. Looking at the record these kids shouldn't be competing in this league. There has to be a minimum standard so innocent people don't have their careers and reputations ruined because of some arbitrary unwritten code.

PS, my parents made me let my little brother win when we were kids so he wouldn't be discouraged. I obliged, but I would always bring my A game when there was a wager (ie dishes).

Anyone think of the girls on the winning team? I've played sports against teams that had no right being in that division, and no matter what you did, you still ended up winning huge....and feeling like crap. Oh yeah, big win, but you feel sorry for the other team having to go through that. The league here is at fault, not the coach, not the players....the league should have stepped in and said something. (ie at halftime, you win, and now we mix up the teams and play for fun for the second half).

Robp.

A good plan.It would have put the kids with the "learning difficulties" in contact with kids that didn't, they would have been a part of a few good plays and all in all it would have been a learning experience for both teams, one that would have been endorsed by both teams, had it have been suggested.

I remember one of these games from high school.

It wasn't fun for us, it wasn't fun for the other team.

1/2 way thought he first 1/2 we were up like 30-4. The coach wanting to be fair instituted the standard protocols... everyone touches the ball before ya shoot, no fast breaking, etc etc.

We got tired of it before 1/2 time. And with a few mins left in the half dropped 15 points in 3 mins.

1/2 time. Coach praised us for how well the fast break and the defense was doing... then chewed us out for doing it.

So we went back out after the half... and tried not to embarrass the other team... for a while.

It got to the point of the globetrotters game. We all stood around the outside of the 3 point line and passed it back and forth for 20 secs. A few cheers from their coach at how well their defense was at keeping the ball out even tho we didn't send in a post man of any kind. Then someone drove the lane and threw in an easy layup.

We were very bored, the other team wasn't having fun and couldn't defend against even a single man drive.

We asked ourselves what we were doing out there in the first place, it wasn't worth anything at all.

It was embarrassing to us to stand around and it was embarrassing to them to have us try to play so bad that we didn't blow them out.

It was somewhere near the point when their coach was cheering their defense that we weren't bothering to test and around the point where coach told us to cease shooting/miss easy shots that we crossed the line.

The rest of the game went like this: Steal the ball.. throw it out of bounds. Steal the ball,... dribble down to their key and hand it to someone. Steal the ball, lob it to one of the coaches. One of us after getting the rebound dribbled to the sideline and dropped it in the referees hands. We played 3 man D and 2 outlets on the center line... fast break and see how hard you can throw it off the backboard. It was straight time.... we through it out the door and down the hallway to kill time.

The game ended. We finished up more than 80 points. I think the opposition got to double digits. Coach couldn't stop yelling at us. We ran laps for most of practice for the rest of the season. We forfeited the next game against them.

But I have to ask. What was the point?? how did having them in the league and playing us benefit us, the league or them? Us versus them in football was a complete 180. It wasn't worth our embarrassment to pick up a pigskin.

So what is the benefit of playing a game with such a gap between skill levels? I have to say I am somewhat embarassed about blocking a shot by grabbing it out of the air turning around and dunking it in my own basket for the shooter. But the game should never have happened. But like I said, it put them into double digits before the game ended.

In retrospect I think a 100+ -

I think the coach,.. the one that got fired handled things relatively properly, and can only condemn the conglomeration of schools and officials for putting him in the position where the only courses he had was to embarrass the other team AND his own.

I've been playing sports all my life. I've been on the both sides of a lop sided loss more than once... and the one loss that sticks out and bothers me the most is when the team that was beating us 13-0 in hockey started coasting and not trying hard. Shooting with opposite sticks. I would have much rather they kept playing hard and beat us 26-0 than insult us by not trying hard anymore.

This reminds me of another article where the opposing team gave a "Rudy" type player a free touchdown by getting out of the way and not tackling him. Sure it makes some people feel happy but how can you be proud of something that was handed to you that you didn't earn.

Props to the Coach and To his players for playing the game how it was meant to be played.

Well I for one get the arguments on both sides.
Competition is ruff and if you are a team competing for a championship, possible college scholarships in the balance there is no room for letting up.

However the losing team had a choice they knew it was going to be tough to win maybe impossible, however it takes guts to come and play. They were sorely over matched do they aquire greater skill maybe maybe not.

In the world of possible NCAA sports and I imagine the players on the winning team were dreaming of playing for one of those teams, names like Crimson Tide, Hoosiers, or maybe the Buckeyes
any backing off on striving to improve your game is unthinkable.

The losing coach and the folks that make the schedule may want to rethink what they are doing.

Pursuit of excellence is unrelenting the losing team placed themselves to be cannon fodder so be it.

robp : I was thinking of something along that line too. Turn the second half into a coaching clinic, or yeah mix it up and play for fun. I would have to be there in that situation to see what I would do.

And Americans are way more competitive.
When I was in high school, we played a half dozen times against Seattle schools, either travelling there, or in our gym. They would crush us every time with scores like 100-50. However, we kept going back for more for the opportunity to play against really good teams, and try and step our own game up to match. They played hard right to the end

I am sure we would never ask one of our Olympians -in -training to let up for one second in their pursuit for excellence.
I will bet the farm that there is no place in their agenda for consideration for the loser until they have won.

I agree with those who have stated that this in not a right/left thing. I am as right wing as almost anyone as well as being a basketball coach and I can't support the coach here.
My issue is with the 100, not the 0. If the other kids can't score a basket you are under no obligation to let them. However, I think that , as a coach, you are under an obligation not to run up the score in lopsided conditions like this.
Tex hit the nail right on the head. You lay off the press, you play a less agressive defense.
My daughter's school team was in a tournament last year on a team that was very clearly superior to the other teams. The coach, after about 10 minutes of the game told the girls that they had to make three passes before they could shoot. This way, there was a benefit for their team, they worked on their passing. The side benefit for the other team was they weren't humiliated. I supported that coach 100% then and now. The comparison to the New England Patriots is ridiculous. How do you compare grown men playing a game for large sums of money to a high school girls team?

If the winning coach didn't adjust his teams tactics partway through the game to keep things interesting, he was in the wrong. You don't learn anything from beating a team 100 - 0. He ought to have switched up positions, ran drills, given bench warmers more time, etc. Maybe he did all those things, but from the sounds of it, his team was cutthroat to the bitter end.

Funny but not something I'd like to be a part of. It's no fun winning without trying, and it's no fun losing without being competitive on any level.

Loosing all of the time is boring, as most 5th or 6th born kids in the families of my day will tell you..but..a victory over the one(s) with the age/mental/physical edge is sooo sweet! 'Keep trying' is the motto the loosing school should hang on to; a major BIG loss like 100-0 is not demoralizing for most kids, it is fodder for the 'team joke' when they start winning.

Learning disabilities should never be used as an 'excuse' in sports. It belittles the people on the loosing team.

When I was a teenager, the 'pee wee' boys team challenged their big sisters (who wore figure skates) to a hockey game. We thought we'd win in a landslide; the little boys out shot, out-skated and outlasted us and they won in a landslide!! They were good sportsmen too - they did not trip or 'check' us (even helped us up when we fell down) and they announced (after their big win) that we had played 'very good', for girls!

Their was some pretty humiliated big sisters after that game and my little brother has never forgotten how good that team of his felt on that day. The bonus - those boys earned a fan club of big sisters who went to their games and cheered them on into a provincial challenge.

It is all in the attitude, IMO.

religious nut cases

Lots of good comments on both sides of the issue. I tend to agree that running up the score is in bad taste, but how else do you finish the game? Is it possible to forfeit in basketball?

I coach my son in amateur boxing, and he had to fight his friend in a major tournament last year. I noticed he was holding back, and between rounds explained that his opponent wasn't holding back. He pulled it together, and ended up winning the tournament. His friend didn't hold it against him, and my son learned a life lesson.

I realize highschool team sports are different than combat sports, but the last thing a coach needs to do is ask his team to play poorly so an opposing team can feel better about themselves. The losing team should have thrown in the towel, if that's allowed in basketball.

In a mismatch of this proportion, any easing up by the winning team would be embarrassingly obvious. If the Dallas team had any competitive spirit (and I'm quite sure that they have or they wouldn't be playing) they would be more humiliated and angry if the opposition was to back off the throttle. The ego gets a bigger bruising when you see your opponent coasting because of pity. To me, this is more disrespectful than getting a good whuppin'.

In any contest, I would much rather have my opponent hand me my ass than to lay off for fear of hurting my feelings. Of course, this type of thinking does not apply to a fight, for example. I would prefer to have my ego battered before my nose or teeth.

One of the few games that I vividly remember as a kid was a bitterly painful loss at a tournament in Red Deer. It wasnt a medal placement, it was the first of the medal rounds, and we were matched with a team that outpowered us in every way. I dont remember the final score anymore, but I remember three things about that game.
1. We lost, miserably, the other team never let up just because they were ahead, they kept pushing and pushing and we struggled to push back.
2. Every single girl in the dressing room after the game cried, it was a truly painful loss for us, we desperately wanted that win.
3. It was the best game I've ever played in my life, I learned more in it than I did in all my wins combined. I skated faster than I ever had at that point in my life, one of my teammates made the most beautiful underhand pass, and our goalie stopped some spectacular shots. It was a good loss, and it was an honorable loss, we had nothing to be ashamed of in that game and we worked that much harder afterwards. For our final months we worked harder than we ever had, and when it counted, we came back to play the same team in the Gold Medal round of provincials. I still have my gold medal from that last meeting, no victory has ever been sweeter.

Sports is about revelling in the joy of victory and biting back the pain of defeat. You can only experience one per game, and you have NO right to take away that joy from anyone who earned it. The fun-fun scoring in sports destroys the competitive nature of the game, takes away the desire to excel, the ability to learn from loss and just creates more unearned fluffy feel good moments and doesnt help any kid learn grace in defeat or honor in victory (and honor does not mean letting up when you're ahead, because that is patronizing and far more offensive than a large score difference, it means telling the other team good game, even when they lost).

If this team didnt belong in the league, I'm sure there are other leagues they could belong to, even if the drive to get to the game is an hour longer than before.

Sports in High school or the minor league venue has one objective in mind. Turning Pro. It may not be stated it may not be advertised but that's what it is.

99.99% are not going to come any where close to achieving that. Nevertheless the game is on once you set foot, skate, or cleat, whatever onto the field of battle. Make no mistake that is what it is.

As time marches on it becomes painfully obvious that your Johnny or Susy isn.t the next A rod or Sue Bird. The mantra then becomes well we have to make this fun for everyone. Dumb down the game as it where. For those competing and now I'm just talking about moving up not turning pro it becomes tedious.

Your only thought is push to the next level practice never give up never stop never never relent. Drive through the pain. Push harder. PUSH HARDER.

Jethro

I'm simply saying you can't win for losing.

Since when did EVERYTHING become a public matter? If the school wants to fire their coach because they don't like the color of his socks, that's their prerogative (assuming no violation of an employment contract). If we profess to be defenders of freedom, shouldn't we respect the right of others to make private decisions even when we disagree with those decisions? Are we being respectful when we criticize them?

I am sure we would never ask one of our Olympians -in -training to let up for one second in their pursuit for excellence.
I will bet the farm that there is no place in their agenda for consideration for the loser until they have won.

Posted by: Lee at January 26, 2009 5:25 PM

Actually, Lee, that did happen in 1992. Tom Glesby was Canadian heavyweight champion, but the olympic coach had a young boxer in his club named Kirk Johnson, who he wanted to take to the olympics. He forced Glesby to move up to the super-heavyweight division, to allow Johnson to take the heavyweight spot. It was an abuse of power, and ruined Glesby's chance for a gold medal. Johnson went on to have a decent pro career, while Glesby never got off the ground, despite the fact he was twice the fighter Johnson ever was.

That "Christ like compassion" alluded to by the administration dweebs who fired the coach is why everywhere in today's world when Mo and Jesus butt heads Islam comes away with a pound of flesh and more arrogance and Christianity comes away with a few less adherents and less relevance.

Irene Swain:

HOOORAH!

I just found the way for the Toronto Maple Leafs to win the Stanley Cup.The other teams just have to "play nice".

It looks to me that THE COACH was made scapegoat of.

For whatever reason the school chose to apopogize the coach apparently disagreed with that decision.

Winning the game as they did may have been an embarrassment for all concerned and certainly the losing school's coach had the option of conceding defeat well before the embarrassment went to lengths it did.

So what?

The firing of the coach is an extremely poor way of dealing with the issue.
It shows the complete lack of maturity on the part of the board.

Good sense is becoming lost and almost always at the alter of mush headed political correctness.

Having read the article, I have no idea what is un-Christlike about playing one's best and winning. I'd, rather, suggest it is un-Christlike to deny reality and, further, to complain that one team was a clear winner in a competitive sport. Isn't that what competitive team sports are all about?

This article completely illustrates plummeting standards in North America, the result of "equality of outcome" policies, which criticize and belittle superior ability while coddling and making compensations for mediocre or substandard ability.

This is the kind of article that might have been written by a superior satirist a few short years ago. It's absolutley insane that this Kafka-esque situation is not satire but has actually happened. What could ever motivate young people to do their best after a superlative win is deemed to be an abject failure? Why would young people aspire to be Christ-like when they're told that to do their best is mean and unChrist-like?

'Talk about down Alice's Rabbit Hole.

Batten the hatches, folks. Rough seas ahead.

Just shows the erosion of competition. By the way this school is not full of tards or crips. Like every other school they mainstream "some" kids. I will say it has many sore losers. Identity sports now?
If they don't learn now life is unfair, they never will. They will become victims for the rest of there lives.
Like my Dad said. Second is just the first loser.
Dewey himself the socislist architect of the North American school system didn't believe in competition because of Capatalism. He also favored State mass Education away from parents . Whom he thought was the snake of religion in there ear as he would put it. In his philosophy parents should have had no say in a childs belief. Something the UN has taken to heart like all that reeks from this extension of the pit. He himself of course had no religious convictions.
When did Jesus say you had to lose a game? Where in the bible does it say not to do your best?
This is more submission to PC socialism, preaching collectivism.
Right now education is at war with Democracy & Parental rights. Just Google (TM ) who runs the education Unions. Look at Dewey’s beliefs yourself.
Now this creeping anti-human ideology has crept into Christian institutions as well. Seems they have fallen hard for this false doctrine that degrades the individual effort, for meaningless phony gestures that cheapen the winners with the losers slurred as spoil sports from adults who should know better. This is indeed the day‘s of the "Great Falling Away" if losing a "game" becomes a Christian virtue.
JMO

AND, why on earth was such a fine team put in competition with a team that hadn't won one game? I'm with others who say the problem is not the winning team and their coach but the idiots who pitted these two teams against each other in the first place.

I'm a sports klutz, but I taught children with learning disabilities for nearly three decades. I was appalled at how many of my colleagues and administrators wanted the bar to be artificially lowered for these kids. That's something I always refused to do.

I modified the level and amount of work, but never the expectation that it would be done well—always providing the means to do that. Re non academic behaviour, I was not in favour of letting kids off the hook. I told administrators more than once that their winking at seriously anti-social behaviour “double victimized” my kids, who deserved to be treated with the respect that they deserved: to have high standards both set and expected, with serious consequences for non compliance.

What was the purpose of this game? As the two sides were altogether mismatched, why were they opponents? Were there expectations that the stronger team would go easy on the other? Were the parameters of this match clearly set? I have to admit, I’m somewhat confused—even after reading the article and all the comments.

However, the idea that Christianity mandates letting the weak opponent win, no matter what is ludicrous. Again, I’d like to know the purpose and in-advance parameters of this exercise.

Revnant Dream, thanks so much for pointing out that the school was not full of "tards or crips".
I can assure you that your ability to turn such a fine phrase left me in awe of your own intellectual capacity. /sarc off

From Article:
(Coach Micah) Grimes did not teach or work at The Covenant School. He was in his fourth season as girls basketball coach, having built the program from a 2-19 record his first season to a state championship contender last season. Covenant, which plays larger out-of-district schools, is 6-3 this season and undefeated in its Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools district.

Micah Grimes should see if he can take the job that deadbeat Dallas Academy Coach Andrew Lott has been so shiftless at.

I'm sure Coach Grimes could build the Dallas Academy girls BB team into the kind of winners that he built Covenant into today.

Oh great, a new program called "No Team Left Behind"

And if they were handicapped the person who arranged the game should have been fired.

Can we have the Special Olympics folded into the regular Olympics?

Just wondering.

Horny Toad

this reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron'

i recently witnessed a 138 - 31 game in a girls high school basketball game no one made a big fuss about it even though it was a 107-point margin. It was (in both cases) clearly the opposing team's coaches fault, they're utterly inept.

The thing I don't see too clearly is why the coach was fired. It was in somewhat poor taste to be throwing 3 pointers but to the best of my knowledge the team that was whooped didn't complain. The fans were upset but the team took their lumps. The coach made what in my mind was a sincere apology, it was accepted and that should be the end of it if sportsmanship is the object.

Oz:

My lord what planet are you living on. Have you not read further up the page than 2 or 3 statements.

Of course he could build it into a better team. However those players that participated in the game under scutiny would no longer be there.

Yesh what a dick head.

I guess you are right they should expunge those slovenly, lazy players and build one one par excellance.

Never should those losing players have seen a BB court. Of course you are right.

Might I inquire what should be done with them.

As far as learning valuable lessons concerning winning and losing in sports and life I'm sure the losing team had learned most of those lessons after years of no winning seasons. They kept showing up anyway though. I think the lesson they learned in this game is that there are real scumbags out there in the world who are going to kick you while you're down. Now they were going to learn this lesson eventually anyway but I for one wouldn't take pleasure witnessing it.

As far as a boxing analogy goes. This wasn't the championships. This was like an amateur getting in the ring for the first time with a semi pro in an exhibition fight. Happens all the time. The good boxer wins but he doesn't take the other guy apart and send him off on a stretcher.
Poor sportsmanship is poor sportsmanship.

johl wrote, "this reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron'. Me too!

This vicious satire on "equity" is a must read. Google it and ENJOY!

I despair at the level of idiocy in this thread.

The majority of you either have never played high school sports or have totally forgotten what it's about.

In school, we KNEW that sportsmanship was important when we played many teams from rural Manitoba. We never purposely ran up the score, and we NEVER pressed a clearly inferior opponent.

The fact that the team picked it and pressed until they got to the magic 100 point level tells you all you need to know.

Class and winning aren't mutually exclusive. I'm saddened that so many have forgotten that fact.

...I think the word "sportsmanship" is missing here.

Adler ran with this today.

My first thought was, why was a team with learning disabilities playing in a league against teams who don't? That's just stupid and setting those kids up for failure. I'm all for fair play and inclusion, but political correctness has no place in sports.

Having said that, I coach my oldest's basketball team, we're currently 11-1-0 for the season. This is a team that finished third last year with a 4-12-0 record going into the playoffs. When we were 10-0-0 this season, I knew we would lose our 11th game. Why? They were getting cocky and lazy. We got stomped 36-14 in that game. But they learned from it, and showed up at the next game, which we subsequently won 51-2. In this league at this age only 1/2 court press is allowed.

Our hard and fast rule is when we get up on an opponent by 20 or more points, nobody shoots at the net until everybody on their line touches the ball. Not because we want the other team to come back, but because nothing strengthens a player's ability like in game situations.

Running up the score to feed your ego isn't cool, but in this case the coach shouldn't have taken all the heat.....

Well, I agree with some of the moderate comments on both side (only because the losing team was made up of 'challenged' players.

Should the coach have been fired? No.

Frig, it's only basketball - who really gives a sh*t?

Yukon Gold you are from butt f%/K Manitoba these kids are from Dallas. Unless you are competing for something all you sentiments register as true.

However these guys live in a world were scouts patrol the corridors of academia. Ever seen what the budget is for a College football team baseball team or basketball team is.

You think they were wandering around Northern Manitoba. Oh I'm from Manitoba.

Put your kid in a Hockey rink in this country and you might get it.

Sportsmanship becomes important when you aren't a contender. If you are winning is what it's important. Fairly, with skill, resolve, unrelenting drive, but win.

Winning in sports isn't about ego it means you get to play tomorrow.

Nicely said Yukon Gold. And Jeff. Do you really think scouts showed up for this game? Give your head a shake son. They weren't competing for anything, they had the points. That makes Yukon Gold correct in his assessment just like you pointed out.

I can't find butt f%/K Manitoba on any map. How's the weather there.

"I can't find butt f%/K Manitoba on any map. How's the weather there. "

I live there and I can say it's f%/King cold. But they say global warming should be here any day now.

Gord: How did you ever get that scouts showed up for this game. Are you one of those that is, well, challenged.

No one is going to show up to somewhere in Manitoba to find a player to fill a roster in a PAC 10 school or any other school.

However in Dallas that is what is a common occurance.

To be 14 or 15 years old means that this kind of scutiny has come to a head if you can't compete then well you drive a delivery truck for UPS.And become the King of Queens.

MMMMhhhhmmm global warming good, Warm. Like warm.

Jethro :
This Blog is not a sensitivity training course. Would you rather I said Retard or Cripple? Or perhaps we can use a PC word & pretend they have no problems by wishing them away with rainbow words that sparkle. By the way it was taken from South Park . A cartoon.

Words are cheap Jethro. I actually spent time volunteering (that I liked by the way) with both groups supported in part by the Church. Going to parks , that kind of thing. Have you? Being offended is an emotion based on bias, not a value. Besides its you folks on the left that want to kill them all off. I think there gifts from God, To help remind us to feel empathy & care for one another. You just want them aborted. Your kind wishes murder, yet bulk at a phrase. Incredible.
JMO

Revnant Dream.
As much as don't want to disrespect Kate's blog and get into a personal discussion, I can't let your latest ignorant comment go unchallenged. You obviously make conclusions based on very little evidence.
You have made quite a few assumptions about me each one of which is wrong.
First, because I don't like bullies calling people 'tards I'm from the left? For your information, the left would be quite unwilling to have me. I'm a former board member of a riding association for the Alliance Party (which I joined to help Stephen Harper defeat Stockwell Day because I ejoyed reading his opinions as a member of the National Citizen Coalition). I'm a busines school graduate, own my own business (employing myself and others) and have very little use for big government.
The reason I don't like the word 'tards is because my sister is one, which also explains why I have donated hundred of hours on various boards and committes serving the 'tard community for the past 20 years.
Oh also, I am against abortion.
BTW, as a member in good standing of the right, I fully endorse your right to use the word 'tard or any other phrase of your choosing, and as well I exercise my right to point out that you're an asshole for choosing to exercise that right.

Ebia, he did. The full court press the team usually plays (the whole game ended within a 3 minutes of the start (it was 25-0). He did put in subs.. all of them (all 3). He banned 3 pointers after only 4 of them. He dropped into a zone instead of full man-man.

Do you expect a team that is used to running a full court press the whole game to score fewer points later in the game compared to the team that barely plays?? 35, 24, 29, 12. Quarter by quarter it looks backwards to me... the team that is used to running an playing hard should be able to punch through way easier in the later stages.
They stopped the press 3 mins in being 25 up.... I am willing to bet they could have pulled out 200 points if they continued. That is enough to tell me they weren't pushing to run up the score.

But Dallas says they did.... It's a good cause to whine for I guess. But one wonders if that is very Christan either.

"The fact that the team picked it and pressed until they got to the magic 100 point level tells you all you need to know."

no... the fact that the media glosses over such facts as he didn't.. tells you every thing you need to know. Not to mention the fact that you haven't cared to go get the actual story.

But then you probably had your mind made up on the story before you read far enough to find out there was both a coach and a game that happened.

"Dallas Academy, renowned for its work with students who have learning disabilities, is winless this season and has not won a game in at least four seasons."

You know if some of the students had "learning disabilities" ...
http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=2/bio/

Now Jeff. Try not to get too hysterical here and take a midol. I'll ask again and maybe you can answer the question. I'll rephrase for you. Are you really sooo stupid that you think a scout would show up to look for propects at a game where a team hasn't won in over 2 years?

And the only challenge I have in life is trying not to throttle mouthy little shits like you.

There's been some good discussion here on the subject but for a moment I thought I was at the Globe and Mail site with some of the knee jerk comments that had no thought what so ever behind them. I expect better at SDA.

there are a hundred things you can do in a game to use it as a learning experience without humiliating the other team. If you want to run the score on a pro team go ahead. I much more appreciate the old style humility of types like Rod Laver than the antics of McEnroe.

in basketball , he could have forced players to shoot with their offhand, pass 20 times, pass 30 times. shoot from only outside the key with their offhands. score in order not at will, a hundred things to teach things without humiliating the opposition.

Id say poor coaching indeed. on both sides.

Jeff,

Actually, I'm not from Bottom Relations, I'm from Winnipeg. I grew up in and around Oakbank. We routinely played teams from Bottom Relations, though. That's where we learned sportsmanship.

Jeff, tell me how many scouts will judge a high school girl on her performance in which they beat a seriously overmatched opponent 100-0.

I played sports growing up with Corey Koskie, Trevor Kidd, Sven Butenschon... all guys who put on a uniform for pay. They didn't get signed to pro contracts because they could beat up on the crap teams.

So, go on, smart mouth: Tell me what possible benefit the winning team got (other than the thrill of seeing "100" on the board) from winning like that.

Sportsmanship. Look it up.

ALL MUST HAVE PRIZES !!!!

Obviously the losing team was overmatched, but they had to stay on the court and try to defend, and if they couldn't do it, so what? There's no shame in being crushed if you played to the best of your ability. A team of me times five would probably get crushed 100-0 too.

What is the leading team supposed to do, run around with the ball for 24 second and then turn it over on a shot clock violation? That wouldn't be much entertainment for spectators.

In the NFL, coaches should never complain about getting blown out, because (1) points differential counts for determining playoff position; (2) fans want to see entertainment, and reaching a 50-point plateau (for example) is entertainment; (3) a bad blowout may serve as incentive for the losers the next time the teams meet, so the winners are taking that risk.

"My first thought was, why was a team with learning disabilities playing in a league against teams who don't? That's just stupid and setting those kids up for failure. I'm all for fair play and inclusion, but political correctness has no place in sports."

The reason has to do with how the University Interscholastic League sets up leagues in Texas. They don't include private schools...the private schools are stuck in their own league (TAPPS). Apparently, the school doesn't have many girls going to it...but they wanted to play basketball. Their boys team actually is pretty respectable. The UIL and TAPPS don't allow schools to split their teams and put them in different leagues. If the school competes in one league in all other sports, they have to compete in that league for girls BB, even if they are totally overmatched. They could just schedule only non league games, but once district play starts, they wouldn't be able to find games, because nobody has schedule room for non-league games during district play.

I don't think the coach was fired for running up the score. The school leaders decided to apologize to the other school for how the game went. The coach apparently then decided to send an email to the press defending his team. An admirable thing to defend the team...but when it goes against what the school board is saying and makes them look bad...not a good plan. I think he was fired for the email moreso than the game.

Of course he could build it into a better team. However those players that participated in the game under scutiny would no longer be there.

Yesh what a dick head.

I guess you are right they should expunge those slovenly, lazy players and build one one par excellance.

Never should those losing players have seen a BB court. Of course you are right.
~Jeff Cosford

Clearly you, Gasford , have a learning disability. Or maybe a mental disorder.

re: "players that participated in the game under scutiny" -what are you blithering about?

re: "expunge those slovenly, lazy players and build one one par excellance." -where in my text did you get this idea?

re: "Never should those losing players have seen a BB court."

I didn't write any of of the above. The are all products of you fevered imagination, Cosfard.
You need either a reading comprehension course of a shrink.

Yesh what a dick head?
You certainly are, Gasfart.
When the Lord was handing out heads you though you'd read "beds" and said, "Make mine solid oak."

Blame the coach.

Blame the school.

Blame the league.

Blame the society.

But, God forbid that you might blame the girls for failing to show a little kindness.

As a Dallas resident, I've been really amused by all of this.

In high school football around here, it's not uncommon to see a score of 80-3 in a game where one team is badly outclassed. The winners are applauded by the media as showing "unyielding talent", "excellent coaching", or some such admiring set of adjectives. Because in football, WINNING IS EVERYTHING. The notion that a team should *ever* stop trying, or do anything that might result in a missed scoring opportunity, is Blasphemy of the Worst Kind.

But, in a girls basketball game where there's a big discrepancy in team abilities, and the winning coach tries to do the right thing, everyone suddenly piles on and says "Shame, shame, shame for that kind of winning score." I have yet to see a definition provided of what an "acceptable" result would have been - 75-0, 50-0, 25-0, or what? None of the talking heads will venture to say anything which would commit them to defining why this game is different than any other.

I have to agree with Tex. The coach wasn't fired for winning, or winning big. He was fired because he had the audacity to say the officials at his school were wrong to apologize when no one had done anything wrong. They're only concerned with THEIR image. It will be interesting to see how they deal with sports in the future - will they provide guidelines to coaches as to when to slow down on scoring, when to stop scoring, and when to stop defending? Do different teams/sports get different rules - say, basketball as opposed to baseball? Well, Covenant school, let's hear some answers - if you can ever finish your handwringing and groveling.

Joey W

Amen!

Best discussion in a long time.

Tex has a good point. The learning disabilities that Dallas Academy specializes in skew heavily male, to the point that the school has 74 boys and only 20 girls. A school with 74 of each would be in the 3A class (TAPPS classifications run from 1A to 5A); 20 of each would be a 1A school. Like most states, Texas (both organizations) does not take this into account in setting up districts, except in the case of an actual single-sex school. Two that I know do are Iowa (in fact, boys and girls sports are separately governed there) and Pennsylvania.

There seems to be some dispute on exactly how aggressive Covenant was in running up the score--and that's the criterion on which I would have to judge.

God. What an appalling and depressing thread.

I'm going to say, Kate, that this is just one more example of kids being let down by adults.

Reminds me of when I played basketball as a kid. Our team didn't have much talent, but we regularly beat much better teams because we had a coach who taught us how to play extremely well defensively and as a team.

Maybe the losing team in this story should go that route.

"Tell me what possible benefit the winning team got (other than the thrill of seeing "100" on the board) from winning like that."

- that's one reason, and I think the main one, seeing this team was beat before with high scores. Another reason might be the scores determine a tie breaker in point standing. You know the old 'cash it in while you can' mentality?

----------------------

I played on a small 10-12 guy Class C hockey team and one night we played some guys from the next level up who whooped us 16-0.

Difference was were we adults and when they even offered to exchange goalies with us - but we declined, as we were going to go down as a team.

(Now if they had offered to mix the teams by throwing in sticks, we'd go for something like that no problem.)

BUT, did we feel good after say about 9-0? Nope, and I'm guessing those handicap kids know the lowdown feeling like we do to a loss.

----------------
Joey. Seeing you live there, I guess it is alright in Texas to run up 80-3 football scores, but in other parts of the world, like where I grew up, we never did that.

THE only team we'd tried to run up 50-x was our arch rivals Notre Dame, but even when we hit the 40 point mark, we throttle back and did only short yardage type stuff. Point was already made when it was 30-zip that we won and cleanly.

We never goofed off in practice either, and never spiked the ball, or act flamboyant in the other teams face. otherwise my coach would have sent me to the showers then and there.

We had respect amongst ourselves and other teams, as well as the refs, I'm sure.

------------------------------

I amuse at some of the posting that in throttling back it is seen as a weakness or being political correct but I disagree.

It takes more strength to regulate then to opulate.

Pat Quinn should have been relieved of his duties as Team Canada Junior Coach after the unsportsmanlike running up of the score against Kazakhstan. Dec. 28 game:
KAZAKHSTAN- 0
CANADA - 15

Micheal Phelps was so unsportsmanlike in winning 8 Gold Medals in Beijing. Shouldn't he have slowed down in some of his races? I think 3 Gold Medals is enough.

I thought it would be appropriate to have 100 comments for this story!!