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.

[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.

[Marelo]

Originally Posted by Mesden

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?

"If we start letting up on teams that are doing poorly, we'll end up removing contact sports altogether, and then we'll ban speaking in any negative manner, and then we'll change all of the activities to noncompetitive arts and crafts, all in the name of saving the egos of the losers."

That a big enough slope for you?

On topic: I don't mean an apology in the sarcastic sense... I mean, they aren't necessarily apologizing for being good. They might be apologizing that the situation of their really good team against the really poor team even came about. See what I mean?

[Preturbed]

Those girls are definitely playing in the wrong league, no two ways about it. If the fact that it's a school for "special" people doesn't tip you off, maybe loss after loss will. Oh wait, obviously not. The people really at fault here are the coaches, the winning coach for not seeking a forfeit from the opposing team at halftime, and the losing coach for not doing his damn job!

This is like the beginning of the Mighty Ducks, only I doubt there will ever be a turnaround for this team. Only a long line of sadistic coaches watching them lose.

[Archbio]

I can't find the reference right now, but I remember reading that Kurt Vonnegut himself was of the opinion that many people were going beyond the intent of Harrison Bergeron when interpreting it and were abusively applying it to real world situations.

Authorial intent is something of a problematic factor when interpreting a work, but I think this is one such situation, without a doubt. Were the winning players hobbled? Were they punished? Was the game and its result cancelled or altered in any way?

They just apologized. There's nothing wrong with what's basically a display of sportsmanship, even if it is ackward, and Harrison Bergeron is in no way relevant to it.

Edit:

In the case of an inability to provide them, the real world is highly unsympathetic.

I think that evidently that's not quite a factual statement, since this whole thread started out of your annoyance at people being what you perceive as too sympathetic.

However, other examples are readily available, such as the Special Olympics, in which all parties are rewarded regardless of performance

Oh yeah, damn those Special Olympians! Jeeze.

*The Wikipedia article for the novel links to the article on Political Correctness, for no readily discernable reason.