PDA

View Full Version : Connecticuit is turning their kids into WUSSIES!!!



Norelco
2006-05-25, 14:31
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/s ... NHeadlines (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=2457707&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)

Chumbelina
2006-05-25, 14:46
wow, that's just terrible. f your team can slaughter the other teams by 50+ points, that team has some sort of professional potential. I can't believe they get punished for the product of hard work and discipline.

I hate all these equal rights movements.

Wilimac
2006-05-25, 14:54
How thats just retarded.

SephYuyX
2006-05-25, 14:56
Fucking rediculous.

Kaylia
2006-05-25, 14:58
Stuff like this make me remember a soccer game we had that was canceled. We scored 2 goal in 3min, then lost the match 9-2 after 30minutes.


I think having the match canceled was more humiliating than anything else. I would rather take the beating from the beginning to the end than have someone else stop it.

Anyway
2006-05-25, 15:03
I hate this shit. Just like giving a trophy to the dumbass kid who came in last and telling him good job. They're not going to get any better if you teach them it's good to come in dead last.

Norelco
2006-05-25, 15:11
Is that suspension with pay? Because I would gladly take a suspension if my team could crush another 90-0.

Heian
2006-05-25, 15:20
wow, that's just terrible. f your team can slaughter the other teams by 50+ points, that team has some sort of professional potential. I can't believe they get punished for the product of hard work and discipline.

I hate all these equal rights movements.

I agree, I mean there are mercy rules but don't punish the fucking coach for making his team increadable.

My highschool had the worst record in the state, possibly nation. Four Varsity seasons in a row without a single win, they were fucking pathetic. They won their first game against a team who had thier whole starting line up unable to play due to thier grades lol, and even then I think it was by one touchdownw. I don't really blame the players as much as the coach, he was a fucking moron.

othellojr
2006-05-25, 15:33
Thats just pathetic, I mean if a team can't play, then they should not even be on the field, no need to punish a team for being good, lol. I am guessing there is a woman involved in that commitee (or w/e) is passing this shit, since only a woman would consider this thing to be a good thing.

Avvesione
2006-05-25, 16:39
LET THEM PLAY!!

Demetrick
2006-05-25, 16:46
What the hell do you say as a coach of a team that blew another team away?

My college football team was lucky to win one game a year. And that was against the college that actually got bumped down to play highschool teams that were really good.

I still went to the games, and they were still fun.

Mega trivia hint: The coach at my college is the brother to the winning coach at Ohio State. I find it humorous how the two were in completely different leagues.

Surealistic
2006-05-25, 16:47
Stuff like this make me remember a soccer game we had that was canceled. We scored 2 goal in 3min, then lost the match 9-2 after 30minutes.


I think having the match canceled was more humiliating than anything else. I would rather take the beating from the beginning to the end than have someone else stop it.

i take your 9-2 game and raise you a 20-0 beatdown we put on a team in highschool

to compare that to football, thats like a 150-0 score >.>

Skyylya
2006-05-25, 16:48
i'm from connecticut....and i'm apalled.

Alleya
2006-05-25, 17:06
I hate this shit. Just like giving a trophy to the dumbass kid who came in last and telling him good job. They're not going to get any better if you teach them it's good to come in dead last.

No. Any kid knows what being in last place means. Rewarding people despite being defeated them teaches them that coming in last is not the end of the fucking world and it's been shown that doing this reduces misplaced agression in the real world.

Doing it for retarded kids on the other hand, if that's what you meant, who cares? They'll never grasp the concept anyway. Let them have fun and feel happy.

Skyylya
2006-05-25, 17:11
I hate this shit. Just like giving a trophy to the dumbass kid who came in last and telling him good job. They're not going to get any better if you teach them it's good to come in dead last.

No. Any kid knows what being in last place means. Rewarding people despite being defeated them teaches them that coming in last is not the end of the fucking world and it's been shown that doing this reduces misplaced agression in the real world.

Doing it for retarded kids on the other hand, if that's what you meant, who cares? They'll never grasp the concept anyway. Let them have fun and feel happy.

I would have to dissagree. Rewarding people for doing poorly makes them not hold themselves accountable. There is a reason that the world, and america in particular is raising lazy, self centered spoiled little shit kids who don't take responsibility for themselves. Because every time they do something, even if poorly they get coddled and told that it's ok as long as they try.

Kids need to learn how to succeed, and equally importantly they need to learn the ramifications of failure so that they can prepare themselves for a cruel world. I can't tell you how many kids i know that don't have a freaking clue how to take care of themselves cause mommy and daddy always fixed everything when they screwed up.

Raivyn
2006-05-25, 18:02
I hate this shit. Just like giving a trophy to the dumbass kid who came in last and telling him good job. They're not going to get any better if you teach them it's good to come in dead last.

No. Any kid knows what being in last place means. Rewarding people despite being defeated them teaches them that coming in last is not the end of the fucking world and it's been shown that doing this reduces misplaced agression in the real world.

Doing it for retarded kids on the other hand, if that's what you meant, who cares? They'll never grasp the concept anyway. Let them have fun and feel happy.

I would have to dissagree. Rewarding people for doing poorly makes them not hold themselves accountable. There is a reason that the world, and america in particular is raising lazy, self centered spoiled little shit kids who don't take responsibility for themselves. Because every time they do something, even if poorly they get coddled and told that it's ok as long as they try.

Kids need to learn how to succeed, and equally importantly they need to learn the ramifications of failure so that they can prepare themselves for a cruel world. I can't tell you how many kids i know that don't have a freaking clue how to take care of themselves cause mommy and daddy always fixed everything when they screwed up.

They're giving them trophies now?

Look, a ribbon is enough to teach a kid that coming in last place but giving it your best is not the end of the world, but they need to try harder if they want the trophy next time. If they're not a total bitch whiner and actually put some effort into the race at hand then they should be recognized for their effort, but nowhere near the actual winners. Having everyone get the same thing is commie socialism, and it's god damn annoying.

That being said, this here is what happens when PTA moms have too much of a fucking say in what's going on. The reason for wanting to stop games is two fold; 1) mommy doesn't want to see their little baby sad and 2) the fucking bitches want to QUIT. Anybody who wants to QUIT deserves to lose a game 50-0. Shit, I remember some hard up lacrosse games in high school on both sides of that. At no time did my team quit when we were shutout. Likewise, in later years, only several teams in the entire league would quit when they were getting pounded. Often it was still a reasonable challenge to get through their defense, right to the bitter end for them.

You know what - I'm all for keeping this rule. Let them cop out when they're getting shut out... at a price. The price being they have to hold up a big sign that says LOSER QUITTERS for their yearbook team picture if they forfeit even one game like this.

Ksandra
2006-05-25, 18:44
<- lives in CT and whole family works in the education system.

I think CT is getting a lot of pressure atm from the government. Currently CT is suing the US governement for No Child Left Behind. The US government (much like the mafia), is now threatening to fire half of the CT teachers, and shut down have the schools, even though CT ranks in the top ten for education. They're probably trying to do their best to follow US rules so their school doesn't get shut down. Gotta love freedom of speech right? right?

Surealistic
2006-05-25, 19:01
CT wouldnt happen to be one of the states only reporting the schools/kids doing good, thus making them look like they are doing a lot better than they actually are, would they?

Anyway
2006-05-25, 19:04
I hate this shit. Just like giving a trophy to the dumbass kid who came in last and telling him good job. They're not going to get any better if you teach them it's good to come in dead last.

No. Any kid knows what being in last place means. Rewarding people despite being defeated them teaches them that coming in last is not the end of the fucking world and it's been shown that doing this reduces misplaced agression in the real world.

Doing it for retarded kids on the other hand, if that's what you meant, who cares? They'll never grasp the concept anyway. Let them have fun and feel happy.

I would have to dissagree. Rewarding people for doing poorly makes them not hold themselves accountable. There is a reason that the world, and america in particular is raising lazy, self centered spoiled little shit kids who don't take responsibility for themselves. Because every time they do something, even if poorly they get coddled and told that it's ok as long as they try.

Kids need to learn how to succeed, and equally importantly they need to learn the ramifications of failure so that they can prepare themselves for a cruel world. I can't tell you how many kids i know that don't have a freaking clue how to take care of themselves cause mommy and daddy always fixed everything when they screwed up.

They're giving them trophies now?

Look, a ribbon is enough to teach a kid that coming in last place but giving it your best is not the end of the world, but they need to try harder if they want the trophy next time. If they're not a total bitch whiner and actually put some effort into the race at hand then they should be recognized for their effort, but nowhere near the actual winners. Having everyone get the same thing is commie socialism, and it's god damn annoying.

That being said, this here is what happens when PTA moms have too much of a fucking say in what's going on. The reason for wanting to stop games is two fold; 1) mommy doesn't want to see their little baby sad and 2) the fucking bitches want to QUIT. Anybody who wants to QUIT deserves to lose a game 50-0. Shit, I remember some hard up lacrosse games in high school on both sides of that. At no time did my team quit when we were shutout. Likewise, in later years, only several teams in the entire league would quit when they were getting pounded. Often it was still a reasonable challenge to get through their defense, right to the bitter end for them.

You know what - I'm all for keeping this rule. Let them cop out when they're getting shut out... at a price. The price being they have to hold up a big sign that says LOSER QUITTERS for their yearbook team picture if they forfeit even one game like this.
Yes. My brother plays little league and they won like 2 games all season. I then remember my mother asking me if I was going to his trophy presentation ceremony thing. I was like "What the fuck? They won 2 games, what'd they win?" "Everyone gets trophies no matter what."

If you realllllly think it's helping them, you're out of your mind. I'm not sure which world you live in.

In the REAL world when you work, if you just do the bare minimum, will your boss say "Nice effort! Here's a bonus."? HELL no. "You're fired."

Can't wait for these kids to grow into adults so the parents can cry when they don't move out til they're 45.

edgarfigaro
2006-05-25, 20:02
You people are fucking retarded.

THERE IS NO REASON TO BEAT A HIGHSCHOOL TEAM BY MORE THAN 50 POINTS IN FOOTBALL.

None, whatsoever. I'm not some commie socialist that thinks dodgeball is evil, but I do know that a 50 point win in highschool football is bullshit. There are so many ways to prevent winning by 50, 60 90!!! points, such as a running clock, PLAY YOUR FUCKING SCRUBS, and not schedule inferior competition.

9 times out of 10, blowouts are due to 2 schools playing that should not be playing. A high school soccer team in my area is notorious for playing inferior competition, wining like 10-0 and getting a record of 25-1. They never play anyone good, and they've gotten a bye and a home game in the past 3 playoffs. All three times they got their asses handed to them. Karma's a bitch.

There wasone team in my school's football conference that went around and beat teams 80-6, 70-0 etc...and had no mercy on the deaf kids (it was 90+ to 0). My school would be up 40-0 at halftime, and the final score would be like 47-21 because our scrubs would play the entire second half with a running clock. The team that ran up scores got a majority of the all conference team and the player of the year/coach of the year...then our school beat them 55-0 in the championship game to prove a point: schools and coaches that run up the score are classless and will get what's coming to them.

I feel sorry that Conn actually had to make a rule to make what should be standard common decency: don't run up the score on an inferior opponent.

Ksandra
2006-05-25, 20:04
CT wouldnt happen to be one of the states only reporting the schools/kids doing good, thus making them look like they are doing a lot better than they actually are, would they?

Actually no, just the opposite. No Child Left Behind is scaring schools across the country into giving kids A's whether they earned it or not, because that law says if a certain amount of kids fail a class then the teacher can get fired (no matter why the kids failed). CT did something right for once and tried standing up to the government by suing them for this stupid dumbass rule, and now the government is threatening to shut them down for standing up for what's right.

[EDIT]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4810586 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4810586)

Gives you an idea of what CT is trying to stop.

Surealistic
2006-05-25, 20:17
then our school beat them 55-0 in the championship game to prove a point: schools and coaches that run up the score are classless and will get what's coming to them.

so what your saying is 2 wrongs make a right, and as long as its your school running the score up its alright because its "karma"

tell me, does it hurt when you fall off your high horse?

Not Kuno
2006-05-25, 20:19
That's pretty stupid.

Anyway
2006-05-25, 20:22
then our school beat them 55-0 in the championship game to prove a point: schools and coaches that run up the score are classless and will get what's coming to them.

so what your saying is 2 wrongs make a right, and as long as its your school running the score up its alright because its "karma"

tell me, does it hurt when you fall off your high horse?
lol Surreal just owned your face, don't post again in this thread.

vudoodoodoo
2006-05-25, 22:39
You people are fucking retarded.

THERE IS NO REASON TO BEAT A HIGHSCHOOL TEAM BY MORE THAN 50 POINTS IN FOOTBALL.


This wouldn't happen if the other team DOESN'T FUCKING SUCK.

salvador
2006-05-25, 23:10
Even though getting blown out sucks a big one, coaches shouldn't be punished scoring alot more than another team.

I played soccer all 4 of my years in HS and I have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to this. It's not unsportsmanlike if the other team isn't up to par with you and can't keep up on the scoreboard. It just makes the other team want to do that much better next time. I remember when I was in my first year on the freshmen team and we blew a team out by 9 points. Our region was really competitive at that time so it's not like we were the only ones that did that type of stuff. Sometimes a team would score 8-10 more than another, then the next game would have the same thing happen to them. That's just how stuff is sometimes.

Takeno
2006-05-25, 23:39
You people are fucking retarded.

THERE IS NO REASON TO BEAT A HIGHSCHOOL TEAM BY MORE THAN 50 POINTS IN FOOTBALL.

None, whatsoever. I'm not some commie socialist that thinks dodgeball is evil, but I do know that a 50 point win in highschool football is bullshit. There are so many ways to prevent winning by 50, 60 90!!! points, such as a running clock, PLAY YOUR FUCKING SCRUBS, and not schedule inferior competition.

9 times out of 10, blowouts are due to 2 schools playing that should not be playing. A high school soccer team in my area is notorious for playing inferior competition, wining like 10-0 and getting a record of 25-1. They never play anyone good, and they've gotten a bye and a home game in the past 3 playoffs. All three times they got their asses handed to them. Karma's a bitch.

There wasone team in my school's football conference that went around and beat teams 80-6, 70-0 etc...and had no mercy on the deaf kids (it was 90+ to 0). My school would be up 40-0 at halftime, and the final score would be like 47-21 because our scrubs would play the entire second half with a running clock. The team that ran up scores got a majority of the all conference team and the player of the year/coach of the year...then our school beat them 55-0 in the championship game to prove a point: schools and coaches that run up the score are classless and will get what's coming to them.

I feel sorry that Conn actually had to make a rule to make what should be standard common decency: don't run up the score on an inferior opponent.

Pretty much like the US soccer team, always making it to the world cup because the only real team they play against is Mexico, the rest are shit.

Surealistic
2006-05-25, 23:40
when i was in high school we didnt have football, i went to a very small school and we only had soccer, and our first 2 years there was this team, valley lutheran, they werent in our division but we played them in exhibition games before the season, and they fucking destroyed us like 10-0 for 2 years straight, then my sophmore year they actually refused to send their varsity team, they sent their JV team to play us, we were so pissed, that was a kick in the nuts, so we took that and destroyed their JV team (dont get me wrong they were damn good themselves) as a message to them, dont underestimate us again send your real team or dont send anyone

Takeno
2006-05-25, 23:42
when i was in high school we didnt have football, i went to a very small school and we only had soccer, and our first 2 years there was this team, valley lutheran, they werent in our division but we played them in exhibition games before the season, and they fucking destroyed us like 10-0 for 2 years straight, then my sophmore year they actually refused to send their varsity team, they sent their JV team to play us, we were so pissed, that was a kick in the nuts, so we took that and destroyed their JV team (dont get me wrong they were damn good themselves) as a message to them, dont underestimate us again send your real team or dont send anyone

When your team is crap that's what you get, it happens all the time. Awesome 12 year olds playing against 15-16 year olds in soccer games and STILL doing good and not getting destroyed and even sometimes winning.


WHEN YOUR TEAM IS CRAP, LET THE LITTLE PLAYERS KICK YO AZZ

Surealistic
2006-05-25, 23:45
thing is, our team wasnt crap, valley lutheran was in state finals or state champs every year for class AA, we were class D

thats like duke playing miami of ohio in basketball

in our division we were the team to beat (>.> till we got to districts and had to play christian schools that recruited players)

Anyway
2006-05-25, 23:46
when i was in high school we didnt have football, i went to a very small school and we only had soccer, and our first 2 years there was this team, valley lutheran, they werent in our division but we played them in exhibition games before the season, and they fucking destroyed us like 10-0 for 2 years straight, then my sophmore year they actually refused to send their varsity team, they sent their JV team to play us, we were so pissed, that was a kick in the nuts, so we took that and destroyed their JV team (dont get me wrong they were damn good themselves) as a message to them, dont underestimate us again send your real team or dont send anyone
WOW Good story man. You showed them gooooooooooood.

Takeno
2006-05-25, 23:46
thing is, our team wasnt crap, valley lutheran was in state finals or state champs every year for class AA, we were class D

thats like duke playing miami of ohio in basketball

in our division we were the team to beat (>.> till we got to districts and had to play christian schools that recruited players)

YOur main team was crap compared to theirs, therefore they sent one that was more appropiate for your "crappy" level.

Surealistic
2006-05-25, 23:52
-.- your missing my point, yeah, we beat up on little kids

point is, they disrespected us, i.e. laying a 50 point bomb on another team, and instead of crying about it, "oh woe is me, they dont think we are good enough for their top dogs" we made them send their varsity team the next year

so someone drops a bomb on your team, slaughters you on the field and makes you look like little fairys running around with your pants down, dont cry about it, take it to heart, make that what drives you to not let that happen again

Takeno
2006-05-25, 23:55
-.- your missing my point, yeah, we beat up on little kids

point is, they disrespected us, i.e. laying a 50 point bomb on another team, and instead of crying about it, "oh woe is me, they dont think we are good enough for their top dogs" we made them send their varsity team the next year

so someone drops a bomb on your team, slaughters you on the field and makes you look like little fairys running around with your pants down, dont cry about it, take it to heart, make that what drives you to not let that happen again

Maybe the coaches wanted some sort of challenge for their players and not some stupid 10-0 game?

Raivyn
2006-05-26, 01:20
You people are fucking retarded.

THERE IS NO REASON TO BEAT A HIGHSCHOOL TEAM BY MORE THAN 50 POINTS IN FOOTBALL.

None, whatsoever. I'm not some commie socialist that thinks dodgeball is evil, but I do know that a 50 point win in highschool football is bullshit. There are so many ways to prevent winning by 50, 60 90!!! points, such as a running clock, PLAY YOUR FUCKING SCRUBS, and not schedule inferior competition.

9 times out of 10, blowouts are due to 2 schools playing that should not be playing. A high school soccer team in my area is notorious for playing inferior competition, wining like 10-0 and getting a record of 25-1. They never play anyone good, and they've gotten a bye and a home game in the past 3 playoffs. All three times they got their asses handed to them. Karma's a bitch.

There wasone team in my school's football conference that went around and beat teams 80-6, 70-0 etc...and had no mercy on the deaf kids (it was 90+ to 0). My school would be up 40-0 at halftime, and the final score would be like 47-21 because our scrubs would play the entire second half with a running clock. The team that ran up scores got a majority of the all conference team and the player of the year/coach of the year...then our school beat them 55-0 in the championship game to prove a point: schools and coaches that run up the score are classless and will get what's coming to them.

I feel sorry that Conn actually had to make a rule to make what should be standard common decency: don't run up the score on an inferior opponent.
I was gonna say something, and then I noticed that surealistic totally shut you down, so nevermind.

Jaieni
2006-05-26, 01:27
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/693/notamusedsaran2la.jpg

edgarfigaro
2006-05-26, 06:31
then our school beat them 55-0 in the championship game to prove a point: schools and coaches that run up the score are classless and will get what's coming to them.

so what your saying is 2 wrongs make a right, and as long as its your school running the score up its alright because its "karma"

tell me, does it hurt when you fall off your high horse?

My school never ran up the score until that game, and we wouldn't have ran it up if they hadn't embarassed the deaf school. I do call that karma for them. Yes, we ran it up on them, yet we played our scrubs in the second half of the rest of our games to avoid winning by more than 50points. The MVP my senior year averaged 20 minutes per game, because there was no need for him to be playing in the last 3 quarters of the majority of the games.

There are so many ways to avoid beating a team by more than 50 points, it's not even funny. You know exactly what you're dealing with when the coach they blamed it on called a timeout right before halftime to score again. That's just uncalled for, and that guy will get what's coming to him.

I seriously can't understand why you think it's alright for a team to just slaughter other teams. Maybe once or twice in a season is acceptable if you have inferior teams in your conference that you have to play, but winning 5 games by more than 50 points just says that you aren't scheduling teams that are on your level, and that you're an asshole.

Skyylya
2006-05-26, 07:31
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Ksandra
2006-05-26, 07:36
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Again blame NCLB :D

Norelco
2006-05-26, 08:32
Wow, my thread owns.

I pretty much agree with running the clock if you're up by a certain score, but a coach shouldn't be penalized for doing a good job and the students should NEVER EVER be asked to hold back to spare someone else's feelings. That is ridiculous. We should not celebrate mediocrity. Those who work hard should be rewarded for it, not punished.

sephir
2006-05-26, 11:14
I think its sad that CT teachers have to do this. If one football team is dominating the other, what do you expect the coach to do? say just hold the ball and let the clock run down? Hell no, play the game until the end.

I think its a sad day when the people who come in last place in sports get awards. The world we live in does not reward the losers and it is a bad example the parents and the school board are setting. Although 50+ points is getting a bit out of hand I don't believe there should be action taken against a coach for doing a great job.

Raivyn
2006-05-26, 11:22
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Again blame NCLB :D

You do realize that all of these problems existed before NCLB, right?

Raivyn
2006-05-26, 11:28
My school never ran up the score until that game, and we wouldn't have ran it up if they hadn't embarassed the deaf school. I do call that karma for them. Yes, we ran it up on them, yet we played our scrubs in the second half of the rest of our games to avoid winning by more than 50points.

No, you play the 'scrubs' because they're the kids who never get to play in the 'real' games. Do you see the hypocrisy in your reasoning?

For one, many teams will rotate in the 'scrubs' and still shut out the other team. Why? Because their second and third strings are still good, just not as good as the first

For two, how is it not ok to humiliate one team by running up the score, but perfectly ok to humiliate your own team by benching them 100% of the time unless you've already beaten a team whose capabilities are laughable? Apparently "no John, you suck too much to be allowed to play in the real games, go sit on the fucking bench you scrub" is nowhere near as bad as "we're going to beat you in a fair game". :eyeroll:

Note: Yes, you should play your non-starters, but not in the way you're describing.

Akoa
2006-05-26, 11:42
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

I completely agree. The whole suspend the coach is just freakin retarted. Maybe someone could try to appeal it.

-Or-

Look into why the 50 point lead happened in the first place. If there was a rule broken, the deal with it then. If not, leave the people alone.

Arthen
2006-05-26, 11:54
High school football coaches in Connecticut will have to be good sports this fall

is that even english?

Ksandra
2006-05-26, 11:57
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Again blame NCLB :D

You do realize that all of these problems existed before NCLB, right?

You do realize that I've lived in CT all my life and my whole family is involved in the education system in one way or another? And you do realize that before NCLB it was called "good sportsmanship", and after NCLB it's called "do it or get fired"? It existed but it was minimal and was based on tradition and ethics, now it's based on keeping your job.

Norelco
2006-05-26, 12:23
Yes, ever heard of the term "good sport"?

The coach has to be a good sport and not run up the score. It threw me for a loop as well until I read it a few time. It really was a poor choice of wording.

Raivyn
2006-05-26, 14:59
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Again blame NCLB :D

You do realize that all of these problems existed before NCLB, right?

You do realize that I've lived in CT all my life and my whole family is involved in the education system in one way or another? And you do realize that before NCLB it was called "good sportsmanship", and after NCLB it's called "do it or get fired"? It existed but it was minimal and was based on tradition and ethics, now it's based on keeping your job.

Hahaha, no, it was always about keeping your job. Nothing you just said in any way changes what I noted.

Also, have you ever played sports? Good sportsmanship is far from 'running up the score'. You make it sound like it's somehow cheap. I'm fine with slaughter rule stop-clock, but this is just ridiculous. Sports are no place for crybabies.

Ksandra
2006-05-26, 15:05
Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Again blame NCLB :D

You do realize that all of these problems existed before NCLB, right?

You do realize that I've lived in CT all my life and my whole family is involved in the education system in one way or another? And you do realize that before NCLB it was called "good sportsmanship", and after NCLB it's called "do it or get fired"? It existed but it was minimal and was based on tradition and ethics, now it's based on keeping your job.

Hahaha, no, it was always about keeping your job. Nothing you just said in any way changes what I noted.

Also, have you ever played sports? Good sportsmanship is far from 'running up the score'. You make it sound like it's somehow cheap. I'm fine with slaughter rule stop-clock, but this is just ridiculous. Sports are no place for crybabies.


Work in the education system and you'd see what I'm trying to say. :roll:

Heian
2006-05-26, 15:10
Yeah well the only thing I like about CT is University of Hartford lol... Good Times.

Raivyn
2006-05-26, 15:23
[quote="Skyylya":31505]Good schools play well against ALL opponents, not just the ones they need to be. It's not the players faults that other teams suck, or the athletic directors and coaches happened to schedule a team below their skill level.

Bottom line is, that by instituting this rule, and holding the coach responsible, you're ultimately gonna hurt the players by sending the message that it's ok to do just enough and not your best ALL the time.

I was an athlete growing up, and you can be damned sure that if i was playing, i was playing my best for myself and my team, i don't care who's on the other team and whether they are good or terrible.

I'm perfectly ok with instituting things like running the clock etc...or similar things for other sports. But NEVER tell a kid athlete not to do their best from start to finish. Anyone who can't understand that was either on the losing team their entire life, or never played to begin with.

The arguement that mommy doesn't wanna see her baby sad? That's the whole problem to begin with, mommy has nothing to do with sports, if she doesn't want her kid to be sad, teach him not to be a pussy instead of coddling him his whole life. Encourage him to be better, don't tell him it's ok to suck.

Again blame NCLB :D

You do realize that all of these problems existed before NCLB, right?

You do realize that I've lived in CT all my life and my whole family is involved in the education system in one way or another? And you do realize that before NCLB it was called "good sportsmanship", and after NCLB it's called "do it or get fired"? It existed but it was minimal and was based on tradition and ethics, now it's based on keeping your job.

Hahaha, no, it was always about keeping your job. Nothing you just said in any way changes what I noted.

Also, have you ever played sports? Good sportsmanship is far from 'running up the score'. You make it sound like it's somehow cheap. I'm fine with slaughter rule stop-clock, but this is just ridiculous. Sports are no place for crybabies.


Work in the education system and you'd see what I'm trying to say. :roll:[/quote:31505]

I see what you're trying to say, it's just inconsequential. Nothing you just said in any way changes what I noted. And I'm sorry, is it you who works for CT edu, or your family members?

Ksandra
2006-05-26, 16:04
I see what you're trying to say, it's just inconsequential. Nothing you just said in any way changes what I noted. And I'm sorry, is it you who works for CT edu, or your family members?

My original statement wasn't even directed towards you, so I don't know what you mean about me trying to change what you said, it was you who attacked me first, so I defended myself.

When I said my whole family, that included me. My mom is a special education teacher in an elementary school, my sister is a kindergarden teacher, my father is a retired math professor, I have worked three years as a substitute teacher, long-term sub, and worked one-on-one with a special needs student who had shaken-baby syndrome. I have a masters in education and was working towards secondary-education certification, but I'm moving to California in the summer, and certification is state-by-state. It is pointless for me to get certified in CT, since it has no bearing on me getting certified in California, therefore I have stuck with substituting for the time being. And actually I'm rather disgusted in many ways of how the goverment is ruining our schools, and I've debated on whether or not I even want to teach anymore. But that's another story. ^_~

Raivyn
2006-05-26, 16:30
I see what you're trying to say, it's just inconsequential. Nothing you just said in any way changes what I noted. And I'm sorry, is it you who works for CT edu, or your family members?

My original statement wasn't even directed towards you, so I don't know what you mean about me trying to change what you said, it was you who attacked me first, so I defended myself.




You do realize that all of these problems existed before NCLB, right?

Oh man, such a relentless attack on a poor unsuspecting soul. Someone nominate me for bastard of the year, I'm just as bad as the guy beating up the old lady in that other thread. :roll:

Talus
2006-05-26, 23:31
For people who are saying this is a bad thing, I really don't understand your logic.

I'll explain why it's a good rule. It's called sportsmanship. Kids in high school football aren't being paid to play it either through a grant-in-aid (athletic scholarship) or through a salary like a professional. If you're up by fifty in a high school football game, you may as well call the game because the outcome isn't really in question anymore.

In a lot of softball leagues, there is the "mercy" rule, usually if one team is up by 10 or more runs, the game is called. While everyone would like to play the full length of the game, it's pretty pitiful to keep beating on a team with less ability and talent.

It's a lot more classy if you're up by a huge margin to put in your 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers and get them some snaps.

This isn't about turning kids into wusses, it's about sportmanship, fair play and class.

Jotaru
2006-05-27, 00:14
Ok, sure, let's pass this law.

I really have no problem with it, as long as someone can show me the line where we stop giving things to people, and not urging people to make their own success, and where the real world starts; I may have a problem finding it myself.

Avvesione
2006-05-27, 00:50
I was watching ESPN this afternoon and one of the topics on "Around the Horn" was this. They had 2 people who took up the opposite sides of the matter.

Kinda reminded me of this thread.

Regardless, I feel that if they pass a law like this, they should put it into effect in all sports and not just football. I know in my district a track team got beat 116 - 22. I know in softball games get called after 3 innings because of such a rout.

I think it's bad that they targeted only football in this. Although the penalty is weak (1 game suspension) I think they should've been a good sport to all sports. I'm interested to see if any scores in CT are like 65-14 this fall tho...

Gregorio
2006-05-27, 00:53
For people who are saying this is a bad thing, I really don't understand your logic.

I'll explain why it's a good rule. It's called sportsmanship. Kids in high school football aren't being paid to play it either through a grant-in-aid (athletic scholarship) or through a salary like a professional. If you're up by fifty in a high school football game, you may as well call the game because the outcome isn't really in question anymore.

In a lot of softball leagues, there is the "mercy" rule, usually if one team is up by 10 or more runs, the game is called. While everyone would like to play the full length of the game, it's pretty pitiful to keep beating on a team with less ability and talent.

It's a lot more classy if you're up by a huge margin to put in your 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers and get them some snaps.

This isn't about turning kids into wusses, it's about sportmanship, fair play and class.

Great post. There is really no point other than completely humiliating a team by beating them by more than 50 points (in high school, at least). And as much as I love watching college football, I hate that the BCS is set up so that you're encouraged to crush your opponent.

I've played a lot of sports in my time in school, and wrestling was the only one with a "mercy rule" type situation, and that was when you were beating a kid by 15 points. To get teched (the 15 point thing) was probably the most embarassing thing there was, worse than getting pinned in 10 seconds in my opinion. The only people who teched other kids were the ones who wanted to humiliate their oponent, and it's disgusting to see that kind of attitude in high school sports. Kids are usually just playing for fun...the vast majority of them will never play them in college or pro, so there's no point in asserting your dominance in such a way.

Plus, I think that 15 point tech actually helped the kids who were getting whooped out. I only got teched once when I wrestled, it was my first year and one of my first matches and I didn't have a very good idea of what I was doing. It was so embarassing I was determined to never get teched again, and I didn't. I was close sometimes when I was wrestling someone who was way better than me, but I fought my ass off so the match wouldn't get called.

And to the person who said putting the scrubs in when the team is up by a ton is embarassing to the scrubs... I played basketball for a while too, and I sucked. I was a scrub, but I played so I could hang out with my friends, have fun and a little competition. I didn't expect to go in when the game was on the line, sure I wanted to but the truth is I would have blown the game. 95% of the kids who are scrubs know they are, it's not news to them. They're probably there for some fun, and would love the opportunity to get some playing time and maybe show some people what they're made of.

EDIT: Except the time when my coach put me in for literally 2 seconds. That one was realyl embarassing. XD

Raivyn
2006-05-27, 10:32
For people who are saying this is a bad thing, I really don't understand your logic.

I'll explain why it's a good rule. It's called sportsmanship. Kids in high school football aren't being paid to play it either through a grant-in-aid (athletic scholarship) or through a salary like a professional. If you're up by fifty in a high school football game, you may as well call the game because the outcome isn't really in question anymore.

In a lot of softball leagues, there is the "mercy" rule, usually if one team is up by 10 or more runs, the game is called. While everyone would like to play the full length of the game, it's pretty pitiful to keep beating on a team with less ability and talent.

It's a lot more classy if you're up by a huge margin to put in your 2nd, 3rd, 4th stringers and get them some snaps.

This isn't about turning kids into wusses, it's about sportmanship, fair play and class.

There is no problem with a 'mercy' or 'slaughter' rule, but there is a problem with telling kids to play under their capabilities, regardless of team - and that's what this is promoting. Whoever is trying to put this into effect really does not understand the cause-effect relationship of all the factors involved. The problem isn't the other team being meanies that need to be reprimanded - the problem is there is no 'mercy' rule currently instated. Put it in, end of discussion.

Raivyn
2006-05-27, 10:39
It was so embarassing I was determined to never get teched again, and I didn't. I was close sometimes when I was wrestling someone who was way better than me, but I fought my ass off so the match wouldn't get called.

And that's a great attitude to have in a competition, so great job man!



And to the person who said putting the scrubs in when the team is up by a ton is embarassing to the scrubs... I played basketball for a while too, and I sucked. I was a scrub, but I played so I could hang out with my friends, have fun and a little competition. I didn't expect to go in when the game was on the line, sure I wanted to but the truth is I would have blown the game. 95% of the kids who are scrubs know they are, it's not news to them. They're probably there for some fun, and would love the opportunity to get some playing time and maybe show some people what they're made of.

EDIT: Except the time when my coach put me in for literally 2 seconds. That one was realyl embarassing. XD

Naturally, but a team who only puts the scrubs in when they are annihilating the other team to me reeks of bad coaching, and the desire to win at all costs. Generally the reason many kids are 'scrubs' is because they have 0 reliable field experience. A good coach will rotate in 'scrubs' to keep his starters fresh, while maintaining a high proportion of starters on the field at all times (pending position). Basketball is a little different due to the fact that there are only going to be 5 people on the court at one time, but with sports like football, soccer, lacrosse, there is no reason to not rotate in your lesser players for a few plays every quarter to get them some playtime and experience. A team that doesn't play their 'scrubs' until they're up by 50 - and then puts all or most of their 'scrubs' in to me signals an asshole coach.

Takeno
2006-05-27, 18:15
Soccer is not the case. If you substitute a player out they cant go back in.

Anyway
2006-05-27, 18:30
Yes take the good players out so the shitty players can suck. You sound like a damn soccer mom. "Put my kid in! I don't care if he's 400 lbs! He deserves it!"

In a way the H.S. kids are getting money, if they are good enough they will get scholarships. And if a kid can get a scholarship I'm sure as hell not taking him out so some dumbass can see some play time.

Raivyn
2006-05-28, 00:12
Soccer is not the case. If you substitute a player out they cant go back in.

I thought they didn't do that in HS games? Higher level games I know the max sub number is like 3 or so, but I thought they didn't do that till post HS.