100 - 0 win. Winners apologize?

[bluestarultor]

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=903780

In the absence of a news thread, and the larger repercussions to our society, I'm posting this here.

To sum it up, one girls' basketball team beat another in a 100-to-nothing shutout. The school has gone on record apologizing for the victory.

The worst part? They won fair and square.

I personally think this is stupid. The idea that you'd actually need to apologize for being good at something worries me. Like Harrison Bergeron. If there had been cheating involved, I could see it. However, the defeated school, according to the article, hasn't had a single win in the past several years, and no cheating was involved. I think that their energy would be better spent in, I dunno, improving the team or getting a better coach or something, but they're just basking in the glow of the media attention. They were so bad that they got NBA tickets to cheer them up, for crying out loud. And the winning coach finally told his team to slow down when it was clear they were going to wipe the floor with them. I can see how one team severely outclassed the other, but I think that that should tell the losing school a bit about their program.


Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Marelo]

I saw the Harrison Bergeron reference before it was even made. I appear to have developed precognitive powers.

No, but seriously; I wouldn't say they need to apologize. I think they did it just out of pity. In other words, I don't think they were apologizing because they were so good; I think they were apologizing because the other team was so bad, as odd as that sounds.

[phil_]

My Japanese an-ee-mays tell me that fighting with less than your all is an insult to your opponent. Mayhaps a twenty-student school shouldn't have their own team. Or, I dunno, improve so that they can get a single win in four years.

[Bells]

"Sorry you suck so much"?

Sounds more like Rubbing it in then actually apologizing

[batgirl]

I know that when I played in high school, we were told that if we were either winning or losing by more than 24 or so points, we or the other team would loosen up a bit. It's not that they were apologizing that the other team was bad, but at 60-0, for the sake of the players and the parents, slowing down would be nice. According to my newspaper, the winning team was still playing full court press AND shooting 3 pointers. There's like an unwritten (and in some leagues actual written) law that says to kind of slow up if you're winning by a lot. I know that when I played softball, we were also told that if we scored 14 runs, the game would end automatically as to not embarrass the other team.

It's silly, but think of how the other team must have felt, not being able to score a point and still getting just beaten and beaten. It certainly didn't help their morale.

Now, I for one think this rule is silly, because if you stink you stink and there shouldn't be sugar coating over that. Sports in general have gotten so soft over the years because of whining by parents and administrators alike (i.e getting rid of dodge ball and tag). However, if you see that another team is losing by oh, 80 points, it's fair to say that you should let up and just let the embarrassment end there.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by batgirl

I know that when I played in high school, we were told that if we were either winning or losing by more than 24 or so points, we or the other team would loosen up a bit. It's not that they were apologizing that the other team was bad, but at 60-0, for the sake of the players and the parents, slowing down would be nice. According to my newspaper, the winning team was still playing full court press AND shooting 3 pointers. There's like an unwritten (and in some leagues actual written) law that says to kind of slow up if you're winning by a lot. I know that when I played softball, we were also told that if we scored 14 runs, the game would end automatically as to not embarrass the other team.

It's silly, but think of how the other team must have felt, not being able to score a point and still getting just beaten and beaten. It certainly didn't help their morale.

Would it have helped morale more knowing that the other team backed up and GAVE them points? Being allowed to 'win' or even allowed to 'score a point' is a harder blow to a person's ego than just getting shut out. Not only are they better than you, but they're so much better that they PITY you. That just ain't right. A pity point is just a reminder of how damn terrible you are.

Or, worse, you DON'T realize that they started just giving you the points, and think you actually scored against them. It gives you an unrealistic idea of how good you are and how much you have to improve. An unrealistic idea that is going to be destroyed when someone not so nice comes around.

Sugar coating people's abilities (or lack there of) doesn't help anyone in the long run.

Plus

Originally Posted by Shelby Hyatt, one of the losers

Even if you are losing, you might as well keep playing. Keep trying, and it's going to be OK.

Originally Posted by Article

At a shootaround Thursday, several Dallas Academy players said they were frustrated during the game but felt it was a learning opportunity.

The 'learning disadvantaged' kids are smarter than the entirety of society. If you don't go up against people who are better than you and try your hardest you never get better.

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

such as the Special Olympics, in which all parties are rewarded regardless of performance.

Not a good comparison.

If you've got the balls to try to run the hurdles in an actual competition which people are watching with no actual honest to god legs, you should probably be rewarded regardless of how terribly you do at it.

Plus, a lot of them are mentally disadvantaged too, and are incapable of understanding winning and losing like normal people.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Would it have helped morale more knowing that the other team backed up and GAVE them points? Being allowed to 'win' or even allowed to 'score a point' is a harder blow to a person's ego than just getting shut out. Not only are they better than you, but they're so much better that they PITY you. That just ain't right. A pity point is just a reminder of how damn terrible you are.

Or, worse, you DON'T realize that they started just giving you the points, and think you actually scored against them. It gives you an unrealistic idea of how good you are and how much you have to improve. An unrealistic idea that is going to be destroyed when someone not so nice comes around.

Sugar coating people's abilities (or lack there of) doesn't help anyone in the long run.

This. This right here.

Plus

The 'learning disadvantaged' kids are smarter than the entirety of society. If you don't go up against people who are better than you and try your hardest you never get better.

They're smart, but the people handling them don't seem to share the sentiment. That was more my point in the first place.

Not a good comparison.

If you've got the balls to try to run the hurdles in an actual competition which people are watching with no actual honest to god legs, you should probably be rewarded regardless of how terribly you do at it.

Plus, a lot of them are mentally disadvantaged too, and are incapable of understanding winning and losing like normal people.

I'll admit I'm biased on this point. I have nothing against the physically handicapped competing. Far from it, actually. I think that people with physical handicaps have every right to compete and would encourage it, because they need some way of proving to themselves and everyone else that there's really nothing wrong with them and that they can contribute to society.

However, they actually can conceptualize winning and losing, and I feel that giving them a medal regardless of their performance is an insult.

Likewise, I am TOTALLY against competitions that comprise of parents running their kids around in wheelchairs as they sit and drool. If a kid has no idea what's going on, the competition is meaningless and the time and resources could be better spent elsewhere on more productive matters, like making sure that more kids don't end up like that.

I suppose I am, at heart, a practical person, but to me, a competition is about what you can get out of it. That's what bothers me about the Special Olympics and situations like the one we're discussing.

[Wyndon]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Sugar coating people's abilities (or lack there of) doesn't help anyone in the long run.

I mean. This is high school girl's basketball. I don't really know if that applies here. In professional sports? Sure thing. But high school level sports is meant to be more fun than really competitive. I fully agree that this was pretty distasteful. I don't knock the covenant girls for winning, but I knock them for taking the score to the friggin' TRIPLE DIGITS when clearly they KNEW they were going to win.

That's pretty poor sportsmanship. High School Basketball is only a game, it's not a job, nor some super important olympic event in which you need to prove yourself to the fullest. I mean, what about the girls on the other team? Could you imagine how shitty they felt? How helpless all the (previously) excited parents felt, consoling their kids?

I mean, that's a pretty big ego-killer. And unnecessary. I think 60-0 Would have been a decent place to stop. That's a clear message without taking it over the top. People need to respect each other more these days :shifty:

(edited for typo)

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=903780

In the absence of a news thread, and the larger repercussions to our society, I'm posting this here.

To sum it up, one girls' basketball team beat another in a 100-to-nothing shutout. The school has gone on record apologizing for the victory.

The worst part? They won fair and square.

I personally think this is stupid. The idea that you'd actually need to apologize for being good at something worries me. Like Harrison Bergeron. If there had been cheating involved, I could see it. However, the defeated school, according to the article, hasn't had a single win in the past several years, and no cheating was involved. I think that their energy would be better spent in, I dunno, improving the team or getting a better coach or something, but they're just basking in the glow of the media attention. They were so bad that they got NBA tickets to cheer them up, for crying out loud. And the winning coach finally told his team to slow down when it was clear they were going to wipe the floor with them. I can see how one team severely outclassed the other, but I think that that should tell the losing school a bit about their program.


Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Why yes hitting someone when they're down is perfectly acceptable etiquette and a fine show of sportsmanship.

Edit: I mean seriously Harrison Bergeron? Could you possibly go down a bigger slippery slope?

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Why yes hitting someone when they're down is perfectly acceptable etiquette and a fine show of sportsmanship.

There's a difference between down and buried. I think the fact that the losing team hasn't won a single game in years indicates they're the latter. In this case, extensive remedial action is necessary on the part of the losing team to prevent this kind of embarrassment from happening in the first place. I chalk it up less to the winning team being at fault for winning and more to the losing team being at fault for knowing they have severe issues and not seeking to fix them.


@ Edit: I'm not one of the mind to praise someone as a special snowflake for breathing. Our society focuses on results. In the case of an inability to provide them, the real world is highly unsympathetic. The idea that these girls are being rewarded outright for extremely poor performance is in direct conflict with that ideology. I used Harrison Bergeron as an example of the extreme case, not a direct result. However, other examples are readily available, such as the Special Olympics, in which all parties are rewarded regardless of performance, or the practice of Communism, which we know falls apart because of a lack of drive to perform well when no incentive is offered.