School seeks to forfeit 100-0 win

I agree with the coach. The team did very well. Why should he have to restrict them just because they're exceptionally talented?

I agree - there's only so much you can do in those situations. I mean, obviously you don't want to make a spectacle of yourself, because that's bad sportsmanship, but at the same time, I think there's really nothing more insulting than "going easy" on the other team. Losing is one thing, but to lose and to know that the other team didn't even feel you were worthy of any effort on their part, that's like a kick in the crotch. I mean, you go easy on the other team, they lose the game and their dignity. What could possibly be worse than that?

The school that lost had a total of like 50 students, most of whom had learning disabilities. The school that won was a major basketball program.

The school that won was up 59-0 at half time, yet deep into the 4th quarter were engaging in full court press and shooting 3 pointers, just to rub it in and see how badly they could crush the "losers" from the small school.

They were not trying to "win" this game. They were trying to utterly annihilate their opponent in as humiliating way possible. This was awful sportsmanship and defeats the purpose of amateur sports, which is to foster character development, discipline, and life lessons.

The coach should be fired, and never hired again because he clearly has no idea what the meaning of "sport" is.

Beldaran wrote:They were not trying to "win" this game. They were trying to utterly annihilate their opponent in as humiliating way possible. This was awful sportsmanship and defeats the purpose of amateur sports, which is to foster character development, discipline, and life lessons.

And they weren't just trying to utterly destroy their opponent, they were trying to utterly destroy an obviously inferior and mostly helpless opponent just for the sick joy of seeing how badly they could kick the shit out of a helpless adversary.

There was no honor in the victory. I would forfeit the game as well.

So, why were the teams matched up together, anyway? And why weren't handicaps put into place on the game?

Which brings up the question again, how much of a lead is too much? They were 59 points ahead at halftime. Should they have quit then? Is 59 points still okay? Should they have quit after the first quarter?

Also, I'm not certain it was all about beating a helpless adversary (though I'm not saying that that may not have been part of it), but about reaching 100 points. I'm sure the team and the fans would have also been worked up about scoring 100 points against anyone else, even if the other team had made 90 points.

On the other side of the coin, agreeing with Beldaran, a victory against someone who is way out of their league doesn't mean a whole lot. Being better than someone who is very bad at something doesn't say much.

In an event, I don't think ANYONE can say that the losing team didn't show HUGE amounts of integrity by sticking it out against such incredible odds. Kudos all around for them.

Without mentioning a specific "stopping point", there is a generally understood code of sportsmanship in basketball that if you are slaughtering your opponent, then you play some of your backup players and don't run the full court press, going for steals and jacking up 3 pointers.

The starting point guard was playing the whole game, and finished with 48 points.

It's not illegal or even immoral... but it is without honor and is very unsportsmanlike in my opinion.

Beldaran wrote:It's not illegal or even immoral... but it is without honor and is very unsportsmanlike in my opinion.

Honour is defined as honesty, respect, integrity. Not playing to the best of one's ability would be dishonourable.

That's generally speaking… I didn't even read the article. *flees*

I remember seeing a story like this with a football game - in that, however, the coach had gone back to his third and forth stringers, and was doing nothing but basic running plays. However, even then, the team kept scoring, and the coach was accused of running up the score even though there was little else he could do but simply have the team down the ball every time they got possession of it.

There was another basketball game a few years ago where the team won 52-0 or something like that. The winning coach in that game said something like, "Giving them a gimme shot wouldn't've taught them anything." Considering that they only scored in the fifties in that game, I imagine that coach put in his reserves, and it was simply a matter of the other team not being able to make a shot.

To be clear, I'm not saying you can't blow people out. I'm just saying it's poor sportsmanship to have your starting players in the game playing aggressive defense and offense when you're up by 60 points with 4 minutes left to go.

Granted, it's not much of a sport when you completely trump another team. But who pit those teams to play against each other in the first place? It seems almost like a setup.

I think it's a difference in philosophy. I don't get the impression that the winning teams was gloating, or treating the losing team with disrespect. This is furthered by the losing teams reactions; they aren't upset. If they felt that they were being trampled or kicked when they were down, I doubt they'd be so nonchalant about it. But from the quotes in the article, noone on the losing team has any hard feelings.

gg no re amirite?

Why were those teams matched up against each other though?

*reads article*

Wha-SHAMEFUL?!? Forfeiting?!?

How does that solve anything?!? The winning team here obviously had the better team, so why should they call it a shamful victory and turn over the win to the other team?

I'm not going to say it was a nice thing to do. I'm not gonna say it was good sportsmanship either, but... When playing a sport competitively (as in, between schools an such), both teams should give it their all, and if one team is overpowered...well...I guess that's the way it is. As long as the winners aren't asses about it, and congratulate their opponents on their efforts, then I see no issue with them pwning the other team (although I AM surprised that they didn't loosen up a bit when they were a good 50 points ahead. I would probably relax a bit then).

...Here's an analogy from my own life. I know it's not sports, but it's a competitive scenario. For a while now, me and my best friend have been playing games against each other, and in most games (especially fighting games), he wipes the floor with me like I was a puddle, and he was the mop. He never cuts me any slack either. I have to force myself to improve in order to compete.

Recently, we've been playing Brawl. Same old story. For a while, I got my ass kicked by him (most matches he won with 4-5 stocks out of 5 left). Understandably I was upset, because no matter how hard I tried, he effortlessly chained me into massive damage combos, and then meteored me without breaking a sweat. Then, he grew tired of my grouchyness, took pity on me, and decided to hold back on me. And I won a few matches. ...And I felt lame. I felt like he had to deliberately handicap himself for me to even put up any challenge, and I felt pretty low about myself.

So what did I do? I IMPROVED. I trained on my own, and went all out against him, and tried even harder. And suddenly, the game got so much more fun. The odd time I win a match now, I feel totally elated. Although I still lose most of the time, I am getting better, and I am not all angsty or upset about a loss.

Of course, it also helps that he's stopped being so arrogant about his victories. He know's he's too good for my skill level, so when he wins, he doens't flaunt it. Instead, he compliments me on any good strategies I developed, and points out my flaws. As a result, I have improved considerably. Who knew that grabbing was so damn effective for setting up moves?

Similar situation to this 100-0 game. Ok, so they can't be helpful and supporting and really help the other team improve, seeing as they're different schools, but still. You shouldn't punish them for being too good. An apology, is fine, sure, but the rest is just a bit too much.

I see absolutely nothing wrong here. If there were any problem it was with the referee not calling the game short or a lack of a handicap. I've played hockey most of my life and know that 8 goals ahead is where the game ends, I've been on the giving and receiving end of that. Shit happens, Take it as a learning experience.

MANDRAG GANON wrote:I see absolutely nothing wrong here. If there were any problem it was with the referee not calling the game short or a lack of a handicap. I've played hockey most of my life and know that 8 goals ahead is where the game ends, I've been on the giving and receiving end of that. Shit happens, Take it as a learning experience.

Yeah, where was the mercy rule? How about 30 points up = game over?

Cloral wrote:Yeah, where was the mercy rule? How about 30 points up = game over?

The article states that there was no mercy rule in place to be able to call on. *shrug*

I remember reading about this game last week. It was a Girls game, The teams were matched to play together simply because the Boys' teams were evenly match. In fact the boys from that school beat the boys from the school whose girls won 100-0.

I've heard that they are considering not having a girls team next year simply because the pool of female students is so small.

they should of stopped the game at half time, when the score was that high to 0...