High school game score: 170-35

[Turk]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6800394.html

OK, here's the annual high school blowout game so extreme it makes the national news.

There is one part that didn't make sense: after the inevitable fight broke out in the 3rd quarter, apparently the refs only let each team play with 5 players and sent everyone else to sit in the stands. I never ever heard of that before, and am perplexed as to what that is supposed to accomplish.

Suppose it's 100-12 at the half and you're the coach of the losing team. What are your options here? When does the Valvano "Don't give up, don't ever give up" ethos become foolish and counter-productive? Is it more honest (and therefore honorable) to walk out of the gym at halftime and say "There's no point in continuing this charade. You win. Whatever. Good luck." ? Maybe it's possible the kids can be persuaded to try and "win" the 3rd or 4th quarter. Maybe the coach came up with this: "Let's try and keep them from quintupling our score." (Good thinking, coach!) Maybe the players wouldn't be so disappointed if the game ended early. Nobody seems to have asked.

Lastly, before everyone jumps all over the winning coach (might be too late for that), here's another devil's advocate question (pun intended - I crack myself up somtimes): how is this game any different than Duke 114, Penn 55? Scheyer, Singler and Smith played 28, 28, and 26 minutes, which was probably 10 minutes of overkill per man that wasn't really necessary. (There is one obvious answer - there wasn't a fight in the Duke game). Setting that aside, how does the few extra years of maturity between high school and college make a rout like this OK in D-I but not in Texas 4A?

[oldnavy]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6800394.html

OK, here's the annual high school blowout game so extreme it makes the national news.

There is one part that didn't make sense: after the inevitable fight broke out in the 3rd quarter, apparently the refs only let each team play with 5 players and sent everyone else to sit in the stands. I never ever heard of that before, and am perplexed as to what that is supposed to accomplish.

So it's 100-12 at the half and you're the coach of the losing team. What are your options here? When does the Valvano "Don't give up, don't ever give up" ethos become foolish and counter-productive? Is it more honest (and therefore honorable) to walk out of the gym and say "There's no point in continuing this charade. You win. Whatever. Good luck." ? Maybe it's possible the kids can be persuaded to try and "win" the 3rd or 4th quarter. Maybe the coach came up with this: "Let's try and keep them from quintupling our score." Maybe they wouldn't be so disappointed if the game ended early. Nobody seems to have asked them.

Before everyone jumps all over the winning coach (might be too late for that), here's another question: how is this game any different than Duke 114, Penn 55? Scheyer, Singler and Smith played 28, 28, and 26 minutes, which was probably 10 minutes of overkill per man that wasn't really necessary. Does the few extra years of maturity between high school and college make a rout like this OK in D-I but not in Texas 4A?

First off, you never quit, never. Do your best and maintain good sportsmanship and let others judge your opponents and how they handled the situation. Easier said than done for sure, but that is what you should do.

Second, I am not even going to get into your analogy or devils advocate point, re-read my first paragraph if you want to know why. :)

[A-Tex Devil]

This is interesting. Usually you see these scores in like private school leagues or in small school settings.

Yates and Lee are both in Texas' second biggest division and both have well over 1,000 students. They actually both used to be a lot bigger and in Texas' biggest classification, 5A, but both have lost many students due to changes in enrolment policies in HISD that allow students some choice in picking secondary school.

I also didn't realize Yates had gotten that good on a national level. Do they have any NCAA prospects?

(Best high school football team I've ever seen in person was Yates in '85 when they obliterated Odessa Permian in the state championship. They had Johnny Bailey, Santana Dotson and some other NFL players on that team.)

[greybeard]

First off, you never quit, never. Do your best and maintain good sportsmanship and let others judge your opponents and how they handled the situation. Easier said than done for sure, but that is what you should do.

Second, I am not even going to get into your analogy or devils advocate point, re-read my first paragraph if you want to know why. :)

Great post; terrific read. Penn's kid's are men and their school was paid well for them to be whipping boys; they got to play against a storied top ten program, and knew that the score would be run up. Scoring 50 plus points against Duke which was playing hard both ways is not getting bashed.

The Texas kids got bashed unnecessarily and mercillously in an environment in which getting bashed was not part of the deal. The coach is an IDIOT.

[Turk]

Not sure I buy the "college men" compared to "high school kids" logic. The age range (let's say 19-21 compared to 15-17, more or less) doesn't seem like much of a difference to me.

Good point on the financial angle for the college non-conference games - completely forgot about the paid W's. And there is also the intangible asset that the opportunity to play in a legendary arena like Cameron (or Pauley, Phog Allen, etc) provides even in a blowout.

A long time ago, I was lucky to tag along with a friend from an early-season cannon-fodder school on their trip to Cameron for a November game. He was impressed with how Duke rolled out the red carpet for them. One of the optional events for the visitors was a tour of Duke Chapel. My friend replied, "I can see it's a landmark building, but the only thing I want to tour down here better have par 5's on it."

[Newton_14]

In a High School game like that I am of the opinion that when the score gets way out of hand early, the right thing to do is play the bench players heavy minutes, stop pressing and just play solid half court defense be it zone or man to man, and stop fast breaking on offense. Other than that the winning team should continue to play hard and try to execute on both ends of the floor.

I would have a big problem if the coach of the winning team had his kids pressing full court and fast breaking in an attempt to beat down the other team by as many points as they possibly can. There is a line there that should not be crossed. It appears it may have been crossed in this game.

And "whew", big relief as with this post I get my post count off that awful 666 number!:D:cool::p

[1999ballboy]

If I were a coach, I would never ever ask another team not to play their hardest. I'd just prefer it be their bench players. It's not fair to the kids on the other team who spent all day before that looking forward to playing basketball, and it's good for the losing team too. As a coach, you have to coach kids mentally too, and that includes teaching them to maintain a positive attitude in tough situations. Playing against better teams is good for you. The score is just a number that won't mean anything the next day, and that's the message I'd try to impress on kids.

[devildownunder]

In a High School game like that I am of the opinion that when the score gets way out of hand early, the right thing to do is play the bench players heavy minutes, stop pressing and just play solid half court defense be it zone or man to man, and stop fast breaking on offense. Other than that the winning team should continue to play hard and try to execute on both ends of the floor.

I would have a big problem if the coach of the winning team had his kids pressing full court and fast breaking in an attempt to beat down the other team by as many points as they possibly can. There is a line there that should not be crossed. It appears it may have been crossed in this game.

And "whew", big relief as with this post I get my post count off that awful 666 number!:D:cool::p

I agree that you bench your starters, but I think it is extremely unfair to ask your bench players to come into the game and do less than their best. Everyone involved in any contest should be expected to try their hardest at all times. So if your normal gameplan is to press and attack, that's what your kids should be doing, no matter what the score is.

Those kids coming in off the bench practice and workout just as hard as everybody else, they deserve the freedom to do their best when they get into a game, just like everyone else. Plus, every game isn't going to be a 170-35 blowout, a time will come when those seldom-used bench players may be called upon in an important situation. They need to take the reps wherever they can get them.

If your ideal for high school athletics is about "sending the rightmessage," what sense does it make to tell half the kids on the floor, "you should be trying your hardest" and the other half "you should be slacking off and taking it easy"?

[oldnavy]

Speaking of sportsmanship. I have an ongoing argument with my tar hole friends, and that is at the end of games already decided (up more than 15pts for example) why do the tar hole scrubs always shoot a last second shot, usually uncontested? My friends from UNC tell me, well they never get to play, and that may be the only time they score, and... blah.. blah.. blah. I just find that to be ridiculous. Would you really take pride in telling your friends that, "yea, I got a bucket against Pitt Community in 2009!, never mind the other team was walking off the court when I dropped it!" The Duke mop-up players show class by dribbling out the clock when the shot clock is off. Hey, before the shot clock is off, I feel the bench players should try to score... but once you do not have to shoot... DONT. It's called having CLASS.

[NSDukeFan]

I agree that you bench your starters, but I think it is extremely unfair to ask your bench players to come into the game and do less than their best. Everyone involved in any contest should be expected to try their hardest at all times. So if your normal gameplan is to press and attack, that's what your kids should be doing, no matter what the score is.

Those kids coming in off the bench practice and workout just as hard as everybody else, they deserve the freedom to do their best when they get into a game, just like everyone else. Plus, every game isn't going to be a 170-35 blowout, a time will come when those seldom-used bench players may be called upon in an important situation. They need to take the reps wherever they can get them.

If your ideal for high school athletics is about "sending the rightmessage," what sense does it make to tell half the kids on the floor, "you should be trying your hardest" and the other half "you should be slacking off and taking it easy"?

I have to agree with Boozer on this one. I agree with you that the bench players should certainly be trying their hardest and think it is reasonable to have them try different defenses, etc. for a period. But when the score is out of hand, I don't know if that is the best time to be working on fast-break and full court press. That, to me, would be the time to work on deliberate offense and solid half-court defense, at of course maximum intensity. You can certainly play your hardest and get something out of the game without running up the score.

[SupaDave]

I have to agree with Boozer on this one. I agree with you that the bench players should certainly be trying their hardest and think it is reasonable to have them try different defenses, etc. for a period. But when the score is out of hand, I don't know if that is the best time to be working on fast-break and full court press. That, to me, would be the time to work on deliberate offense and solid half-court defense, at of course maximum intensity. You can certainly play your hardest and get something out of the game without running up the score.

The problem is when the OTHER team isn't playing their hardest. It's hard to deny the third stringers the chance to show off what they've learned in practice so a solution should most definitely be put in place by the coaches or the various high school associations (i.e. no time-outs, clock doesn't stop after a certain margin no matter the play, no pressing, etc).

[allenmurray]

People not familiar with high school basketball might not be realizing that there is no shot clock in high school. It is very easy to slow the game down and not embarass another team. You can use it as an oportunity to work on "slow-ball" or situational play (strategies you may need in more competitive games later in the season) or simply run 45 seconds before starting your play. With no shot clock it is very easy to keep from embarassing the other team and make the game meaningful for your own players by letting them use it as an opportunity to develop needed skills for later.

[greybeard]

In a High School game like that I am of the opinion that when the score gets way out of hand early, the right thing to do is play the bench players heavy minutes, stop pressing and just play solid half court defense be it zone or man to man, and stop fast breaking on offense. Other than that the winning team should continue to play hard and try to execute on both ends of the floor.

I would have a big problem if the coach of the winning team had his kids pressing full court and fast breaking in an attempt to beat down the other team by as many points as they possibly can. There is a line there that should not be crossed. It appears it may have been crossed in this game.

And "whew", big relief as with this post I get my post count off that awful 666 number!:D:cool::p

Agree almost completely but half court pressure can be the same as full court, actually more potent if that is the team's forte. Like your style and judgment, Boozer.

When I said "men", by the way, it was that kids in college on a college team have a lot more expected of them in terms of being able to run their lives, and they and coaches are prepared in these circumstances to get whipped and in years long gone, toast to the day that they got to play X in the fabled X arena. Every once in a while, they end up surprising the world, as my Big Red Team did to a 3d ranked Kentucky team, the same one that lost in the finals to Texas Western, smash-mouthing them by 30 with a black player from Cornell dropping 37 on Pat Riley's head.

If, on the ohter hand, Cornell would host Penn by 50 in Ithaca I should be ashamed of them, unless they followed Boozer's formula and couldn't help themselves, which I do not think would be possible.

[oldnavy]

People not familiar with high school basketball might not be realizing that there is no shot clock in high school. It is very easy to slow the game down and not embarass another team. You can use it as an oportunity to work on "slow-ball" or situational play (strategies you may need in more competitive games later in the season) or simply run 45 seconds before starting your play. With no shot clock it is very easy to keep from embarassing the other team and make the game meaningful for your own players by letting them use it as an opportunity to develop needed skills for later.

Maybe time to look at instituting a slaughter rule like in baseball, up by 10 runs after the 5th, game over. So, up by 30 after the third quarter, game over... why not?

[allenmurray]

Maybe time to look at instituting a slaughter rule like in baseball, up by 10 runs after the 5th, game over. So, up by 30 after the third quarter, game over... why not?

No need, really, I thnk your analogy is not apt. In baseball you have to swing. But in basketball you don't have to shoot. Since there is not shot clock in high school but there is a game clock, t is pretty darn easy for a team leading by 40 or 50 to "take the air out of the ball" and not run up the score any more.

[Hermy-own]

Not sure I buy the "college men" compared to "high school kids" logic. The age range (let's say 19-21 compared to 15-17, more or less) doesn't seem like much of a difference to me.

Good point on the financial angle for the college non-conference games - completely forgot about the paid W's. And there is also the intangible asset that the opportunity to play in a legendary arena like Cameron (or Pauley, Phog Allen, etc) provides even in a blowout.

A long time ago, I was lucky to tag along with a friend from an early-season cannon-fodder school on their trip to Cameron for a November game. He was impressed with how Duke rolled out the red carpet for them. One of the optional events for the visitors was a tour of Duke Chapel. My friend replied, "I can see it's a landmark building, but the only thing I want to tour down here better have par 5's on it."


Turk, I don't know how old you are, but there is a huge difference between 15-17 and 19-21. First off, kids in high school are not legally adults. They are minors. Secondly, a college kid has much more freedom and responsibility in their life. A high school kid does not. Personally, I feel there is a line you do not cross in games such as these, whether in college or in high school. In high school that line is much stricter because it is assumed that the kids are less mature. Basically, I don't feel a high school kid should be put through the humiliation of a 170-35 loss. And clearly they couldn't handle it, because fights started breaking out in the 3rd quarter.

It shows a clear lack of maturity and respect on the part of the Yates coach. Obviously 3rd string players have a right to play hard, but the coach really should put them in a slower system so the blowout doesn't get out of hand. Everyone who mentioned milking the clock, a half court defense, working on certain plays, etc - that is exactly what the coach should do. The kids will still be working hard, and without embarrassing the opponent. This game shows a lack of sportsmanship and perspective on the part of the Yates coach.

[InSpades]

I think the real problem with this whole situation is the fact that we think the result of a game is cause for embarassment. If we didn't put so much emphasis on the final score then none of this would matter. Is losing 170-35 really that much worse than losing 120-30 when the other team stops trying after the 3rd quarter? If it was me on the losing end I'd feel worse that the other team had to take pity on us. It would cheapen every point we scored and every stop we made after they stopped trying. Did they let me score or did I earn it? I'll never know. Play the game, do as well as you can, shake hands when the game is over.

[devildownunder]

I have to agree with Boozer on this one. I agree with you that the bench players should certainly be trying their hardest and think it is reasonable to have them try different defenses, etc. for a period. But when the score is out of hand, I don't know if that is the best time to be working on fast-break and full court press. That, to me, would be the time to work on deliberate offense and solid half-court defense, at of course maximum intensity. You can certainly play your hardest and get something out of the game without running up the score.

Why is it running up the score if you just continue to run your offense? If your game is up-tempo for 40 minutes and that's what you always do, why should you have to stop? I also agree w/InSpades. I think the idea of having my opponent take pity on me is much worse than just losing by a huge margin.

Plus, all of this moralizing about blowouts in high school is overblown, IMO. Do we really think 14-18-year-olds are going to be scarred for life because they lost by 100 points? Furthermore, do we think they will be affected more by that than if they lose by 60? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Newton_14]

Just to clarify my comments a little. First, I am not talking about a "normal" blowout where is it somewhat competitive but one team goes up by and wins by like 20 or 30 points or something. I am only talking about games where the teams are so unbalanced that the better team runs out to a ridiculously large lead like 60 to 12 or something like that. And I did not say the bench players should not play hard. They should always play as hard as possible and not slack off in effort.

I simply meant the coach should change strategies a bit when the game gets way out of hand and not press full court and stop fast breaking and work on half court sets. They should certainly still try to score. I just think it is wrong in a situation like that to purposely press and trap all over the court in an attempt to put up as many points as they possibly can. To me that is poor sportsmanship. And playing that way could lead to flaring tempers/cheap shots/injury if a kid on the losing team decides he has had enough and drills somebody.

[Devilsfan]

I would have gone for 200.

[Hermy-own]

I think the real problem with this whole situation is the fact that we think the result of a game is cause for embarassment. If we didn't put so much emphasis on the final score then none of this would matter. Is losing 170-35 really that much worse than losing 120-30 when the other team stops trying after the 3rd quarter? If it was me on the losing end I'd feel worse that the other team had to take pity on us. It would cheapen every point we scored and every stop we made after they stopped trying. Did they let me score or did I earn it? I'll never know. Play the game, do as well as you can, shake hands when the game is over.

I mean no disrespect, but: That's easy for you to say. It's true that when people play intentionally easy on you, that is wrong. But getting blown out by 135 points against kids your own age, it's frustration and disrespectful. Sure, if you think about it logically, while sitting in front of your computer, you might think that everyone can just play hard and hold their head up at the end of the game. In practice, the kids who are down by a lot will become increasingly physical, frustrated and angry. While the kids who are up by a lot will become contemptuous and taunting. Neither will be a good standard for sportsmanship.

I don't think that the other team should stop trying to execute their plays to the best of their ability. What I am saying is they can work on areas of their game that are weaker, while still trying their hardest. Example: Try working on half court defense if your full court pressure is clearly well polished. Example: Try setting up a play for a younger player rather than your most experienced senior. Everyone will still play their best, but without running up the score.

It was terrible sportsmanship.

[NSDukeFan]

Why is it running up the score if you just continue to run your offense? If your game is up-tempo for 40 minutes and that's what you always do, why should you have to stop? I also agree w/InSpades. I think the idea of having my opponent take pity on me is much worse than just losing by a huge margin.

Plus, all of this moralizing about blowouts in high school is overblown, IMO. Do we really think 14-18-year-olds are going to be scarred for life because they lost by 100 points? Furthermore, do we think they will be affected more by that than if they lose by 60? Somehow, I doubt it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that even if your normal game is up-tempo for 40 minutes, practise that in most of your games, but when you are up by 50 or so, it may be time to try to develop some other part of your team's game, such as half-court D, moving the ball on offense.
I agree most 14-18 year olds are not going to be scarred for life, but at some point, sportsmanship includes consideration for your opponents and not trying to run up a score to embarass them more.

[sagegrouse]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that even if your normal game is up-tempo for 40 minutes, practise that in most of your games, but when you are up by 50 or so, it may be time to try to develop some other part of your team's game, such as half-court D, moving the ball on offense.
I agree most 14-18 year olds are not going to be scarred for life, but at some point, sportsmanship includes consideration for your opponents and not trying to run up a score to embarass them more.

If this were college, the teams, esp. Duke, would be using the last part of the game to practice running an offense with only a few seconds left on the shot clock. In this case, milking the clock until there are ten seconds left and then launching the offense.

Because of the shot clock, college teams tend to run their offenses with a good bit of discipline. The problem in HS is that only a few states have the shot clock, so the offenses are much more free form and undisciplined -- which brings me to a corollary point: HS hoops don't have shot clocks because they don't need them; HS boys teams shoot like crazy. Good luck in getting them to hold down the score! Putting in the end of the bench seems the most plausible solution to hold the score down, but, believe me, those guys are going to jack it up even more than the starters.

sagegrouse
'Another factor in college is that no college coach wants to be seen as getting a guy fired by running up the score, so high are the salaries and so devastating the financial consequences of getting fired. Most HS coaches are doing this for love -- and a small stipend beyond the normal teacher's salary.'

[NSDukeFan]

If this were college, the teams, esp. Duke, would be using the last part of the game to practice running an offense with only a few seconds left on the shot clock. In this case, milking the clock until there are ten seconds left and then launching the offense.

Because of the shot clock, college teams tend to run their offenses with a good bit of discipline. The problem in HS is that only a few states have the shot clock, so the offenses are much more free form and undisciplined -- which brings me to a corollary point: HS hoops don't have shot clocks because they don't need them; HS boys teams shoot like crazy. Good luck in getting them to hold down the score! Putting in the end of the bench seems the most plausible solution to hold the score down, but, believe me, those guys are going to jack it up even more than the starters.

sagegrouse

You make some interesting points, but I have to believe if a team is good enough to score 170 points, they likely have some discipline and have had some coaching and can slow a game down in certain scenarios. The high school team I coached was never talented enough to score 170, not hugely disciplined, but I can guarantee you, they knew how to make a few passes before taking a shot.

[devildownunder]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that even if your normal game is up-tempo for 40 minutes, practise that in most of your games, but when you are up by 50 or so, it may be time to try to develop some other part of your team's game, such as half-court D, moving the ball on offense.
I agree most 14-18 year olds are not going to be scarred for life, but at some point, sportsmanship includes consideration for your opponents and not trying to run up a score to embarass them more.

Actually, upon some reflection, I think we do have another point of common ground here. I see some merit in the idea (it may have been you, NSDuke, not sure) that every team has weaknesses and a team up by a ridiculous amount should work on its shortcomings. The only question then is do you leave in the starters and have them work on their weaknesses or put in the end of the bench and have them go all out playing to their strengths? I think either way the coach would be open to criticism -- unfair criticism in my opinion.


The only time I really have a problem w/lopsided scores are when high school or youth coaches intentionally try to score as much as possible w/intent to embarrass. If that's your objective, then it's wrong. Otherwise I'm not fussed.

[NSDukeFan]

Actually, upon some reflection, I think we do have another point of common ground here. I see some merit in the idea (it may have been you, NSDuke, not sure) that every team has weaknesses and a team up by a ridiculous amount should work on its shortcomings. The only question then is do you leave in the starters and have them work on their weaknesses or put in the end of the bench and have them go all out playing to their strengths? I think either way the coach would be open to criticism -- unfair criticism in my opinion.


The only time I really have a problem w/lopsided scores are when high school or youth coaches intentionally try to score as much as possible w/intent to embarrass. If that's your objective, then it's wrong. Otherwise I'm not fussed.

And I don't disagree with anything you say in this post. I strongly agree with playing your best and hardest all the time. But I do agree that if you are intentionally trying to put up a big score to embarrass is poor sportsmanship.

[InSpades]

I mean no disrespect, but: That's easy for you to say. It's true that when people play intentionally easy on you, that is wrong. But getting blown out by 135 points against kids your own age, it's frustration and disrespectful. Sure, if you think about it logically, while sitting in front of your computer, you might think that everyone can just play hard and hold their head up at the end of the game. In practice, the kids who are down by a lot will become increasingly physical, frustrated and angry. While the kids who are up by a lot will become contemptuous and taunting. Neither will be a good standard for sportsmanship.

It was terrible sportsmanship.

"physical, frustrated and angry"
"contemptuous and taunting"

These are the problems, not scoring a lot of points. It's a great learning opportunity for both sides to be able to play a game without letting the scoreboard impact how they play. If you are a coach and you see a player on your team taunting the other team then you take him out, sit him down on the bench and tell him you won't stand for that. If you see a player on your team not trying his hardest or trying too hard (being extra physical) you do the same thing.