Let me repeat that: A Girls high school basketball team beat an opponent 100-0 last week.
As a result of this situation and the outrage it caused amongst the opposing team’s players and fans (as well as home crowd parents and fans), the coach of the winning team was asked to apologize.
He refused. And then he was fired.
And I’ve got to say, I disagree with the school’s decision to fire him. I had this discussion with my roommates the other night and I’ve had the discussion with other people since then, and I honestly do not think the man deserved to be fired. In fact, I don’t think he even deserved to have an apology demanded of him by his own school. I hate to break it to the world, but what happened at that game is a little something I like to call REAL LIFE.
Before continuing, I’d like to at least present two different news stories covering the issue. I don’t expect you to read them, but understand that I’m not just making an ignorant post here. I’ve done some research into the issue and have a relative grasp of the situation.
LINK ONE: (I feel like this story is one of the most comprehensive analyses I've read so far).
LINK TWO: (This is an interview with a different coach who has been criticized in the past for dominating games and he shares his thoughts on what the 100-0 coach could have done differently).
Moving along. I understand the arguments. The winning girls didn’t need to be pressing, they didn’t need to be “shooting threes” when they were up 80-0. They should have toned it down and gone easy on the girls who were losing. They shouldn’t have played their hardest. They shouldn’t have given everything they could to be the best team they could, and they shouldn’t have played as hard as they could to improve their game and become the best players they could be. They should have performed worse because the opponent wasn’t at their level. In a game that both coaches agreed to play, the girls on the court who were winning should have been asked not to play to the best of their ability…because they were winning.
See where I’m going with this?
Tell me: if you own a business in America today, and you managed to be the most powerful giant in your particular industry, would you ever…EVER...give less than your best effort to create a better product, improve your current designs, and make your company a better company for your future and your employees’ futures?
No. If you did, do you know what you’d be? A company that never lived up to its potential. You’d be a company that had the potential to do great things and instead played down to a lower level because the competition was unable to keep up. Now, in regard to that statement, I understand that Microsoft and other monopolies (potential or legitimate) in history would be a great example of having to tone down their work in order to be “fair.” But that’s over an extended period of time, not one instance (such as this game).
If two companies were competing to make the best, most powerful, most innovative, most ____________ (fill in the blank) product, wouldn’t you want those two companies to give everything they could to make that one specific product? And if one of those company’s products just happened to completely blow the other company’s product out of the water, wouldn’t you be more likely to choose the product that dominated? Imagine this scenario with medicine. If two companies competed to make an effective cure for cancer in pill form, and one of the companies created a pill that obliterated cancer entirely while the second company only had a minimal impact on cancer, which one would you choose for yourself or a loved one with cancer?
And how would you feel if the company that could have made a perfect cancer cure didn’t give its best and ended up only making a pill that works at 80% or 90% efficiency? Would you feel like you’d been cheated? Would you feel like they should have done more to make it perfect?
Let’s look at it from another angle. People may think this is a drastic step, but for the sake of expressing my point, I’m going to throw it out here.
If you were in a war, human against human, in full-fledged, life or death competition, would you ever expect your general to tell you to lighten up just because you were winning? If you were a better trained army that performed its duties flawlessly, would you ever expect your general to say “Hey ladies and gentlemen…we’re really winning this thing, so let’s tone it down a little bit. Sure some of us may suffer as a result, some of us might be killed for not trying as hard as we could, but this is such a dominant fight in our favor that we should let up and allow them to take a few of our fellow soldiers down because right now this is just unfair.”
I would hope not.
Yes, I understand this was not a “war.” It was neither a real-life war nor a fictional pharmaceutical battle between two organizations looking to make a good product. But you know what? Those are real-life situations that could happen in the “real world.” And, considering sports are often considered to help build “real-life” skills like teamwork and leadership, why wouldn’t we admit that what happened in that game is a reflection of things that actually could happen in real-life?
Best Buy’s leadership would never say to Circuit City’s management, “We’re sorry you’re going out of business…we’ll go ahead and let up on our sales and our efforts a little bit to make sure you guys can make a few extra bucks before you go.”
The reason they would never say that is because THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE.
Now, at this point, most of you probably think I’m just a heartless jerk who doesn’t care about these poor girls and the fact that they lost 100-0, and if that’s what you think, I'm sorry, but I can deal with that. The truth of the matter is I’m not even saying that (if I were the coach) I would have done the same thing. I doubt I would have done the same thing. Not being in the situation, I’ll never know for sure. And, from what I've read, the winning team did some things it probably shouldn't have done. Not being there, this is simply my analysis of what I've read and what I've been able to determine from news reports. Bottom line, I don't know everything about the situation, and this is strictly my opinion.
But, what I do know is this. A basketball coach was fired for doing his job (winning a game) and then not apologizing for his win. I also know that the girls on his team who played their hearts out accomplished an amazing feat and, instead of being proud of their victory, they were made to feel ashamed of what they did. In fact, the leadership at their school tried to ask that their WIN be counted as a forfeit.
While I typically include lots of goofy links that are meant to be humorous, I feel pretty strongly on this subject. One of the reasons may be that my dad is a basketball coach himself and I can understand the pressure of always being expected to win and be successful as a coach. Maybe it’s because I’m tired of the world expecting everything to be fair for everyone at all times when the reality of life is that it’s rarely as fair and is never quite as ideal as our 3rd grade soccer leagues would like us to believe. Maybe it’s because I don’t believe a man or woman should feel guilty and be forced to apologize for doing his or her job to the best of his or her ability.
Regardless, I promise…PROMISE…I will be ready and willing to engage in a fair, intelligent conversation in the comments section of this post. I will not discount any commentary from anyone, whether I agree or disagree with anyone's opinion. I feel like this is one of those topics that should be discussed more in person than on paper or online, but I wanted to at least share my thoughts on the matter while it was fresh.
Finally, I’ll leave with two quotes from one of the articles linked to earlier in this post. The first is a quote from the winning school’s website posted by two members of the school’s Board of Trustees regarding their school’s “victory”:
“On Thursday, Covenant posted a statement on its Web site that said it "regrets... the outcome of the game with the Dallas Academy Varsity Girls Basketball team. It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened. This clearly does not reflect a Christ-like [they are a Christian school] and honorable approach to competition." It was signed by Queal and Todd Doshier, chairman of the school's board of trustees.”The second quote is in the same news story and comes from the coach who was fired because he didn’t apologize for his victory.
"I respectfully disagree with the apology, especially the notion that the Covenant School girls basketball team should feel 'embarrassed' or 'ashamed,' " part of the post says. "We played the game as it was meant to be played and would not intentionally run up the score on any opponent. Although a wide-margin victory is never evidence of compassion, my girls played with honor and integrity and showed respect to Dallas Academy."
Grimes also included the quarter-by-quarter scoring on his post: 35, 24, 29, 12.
At the end of his post on the Web site, which identifies him as co-founder of Flight Basketball, Grimes wrote, "So if I lose my job over these statements, I will walk away with my integrity."
Again, I welcome any and all comments and discussions on this story and I promise to be open-minded and willing to hear all sides of the discussion.
9 comments:
While I agree that the coach shouldn't have had to apologize for the win and certainly not fired because he wouldn't apologize, I still feel like there's something wrong with this situation. I see and understand your points about doing your best and always striving to do the best job you can do. But there are choices to be made while doing that and what one person says is doing your best, another says a different choice would have been better and still be considered "doing your best". There are other lessons that sports teach, besides learning to push yourself to your greatest potential.
Did the starters and 6th-7th man continue to play even after a large lead? (I really don't know, did they?) Did the coach use that as an opportunity to let his other players get some real world playing time, even the last player on the bench? Or was it used as an opportunity to not only have a "no hitter" (what's that called in basketball?) but also to reach a milestone of 100 points?
Are they really playing to their fullest potential if the team they're playing isn't anywhere near challenging? What was the strategy? Did they use that game to try out some new plays they haven't been able to use on a more matched opponent?
I agree that sports teach you to do your best and to your fullest potential, but they also provide choices - not at all as tough as the ones in the real world - and it's a HS coach's job to teach them how to make good ones, even in tough situations where the outcome isn't forseeable.
So many questions. And since I haven't read the article, only seen what's been posted on Twitter, I probably shouldn't even be commenting.
I pretty much could have summed up my comment as "What were the coach's intentions?"
No I like the first comment a lot and I agree with you on questioning the coach's intentions.
Unfortunately, I don't actually know what his intentions were specifically. It sounds like, from what I've read, that he left his starters in far longer than he should have and was applying a full-court press until about half way through the 4th quarter, which isn't even remotely necessary in the situation they were in.
I mentioned this on Twitter already, but, to write a fair argument, I should probably turn this post into an essay so I can really do the issue justice (because it is still an issue that comes up at least once or twice a year during high school/college football seasons as well). There are definitely, definitely things the coach did that he didn't *need* to do, but I still don't think that what he did constitutes as something he *shouldn't* have done (I say that with a full understanding that you state right away that you don't think he should have had to apologize or be fired for not apologizing).
I would say that, had I been coaching, I'm guessing I would have played my bench at LEAST the entire second half. It may seem like that contradicts my post (as I talk about giving everything you can), but my point in the post is that nobody should be PUNISHED for doing the best he or she can do.
(Side notes, the all caps are simply for emphasis, not raising my voice toward you or anyone else.)
I think the coach should have played his bench, let THEM play to their fullest potential, and if it still ends up being 100-0 at that point, then it's not his/their fault. I don't think he should have let his starters destroy this other team, but I also don't think anyone should be punished as a result of them doing so.
I guess I should emphasize that my point with this post and with this discussion isn't that I support the coach's actions or decisions on the court, I just strongly disagree with the school's decision to demand an apology and then firing the coach for not apologizing.
And, to answer your question, the appropriate term for a no-hitter in basketball would most likely be a shutout, but those tend to be pretty rare (especially a shutout of that magnitude). Might be one more reason the team was caught up in the moment of doing something that they'd probably never have a chance to experience again. Not saying it makes it right, but it might be help explain why the coach and players' judgment may have been clouded throughout the situation.
Honestly, I feel bad for the girls that lost. I know it may not sound like that from my post, but I've been on the bad end of 50 point losses and thought that was absolutely miserable. I can't even think of how heartbreaking a loss of 100-0 would be to endure.
I just can't find any justice in the coach being fired for not apologizing for a win either.
I liked your post Mike and you make some interesting analogies. But you hit the nail on the head: losing is a part of life. I personally don't care what the coaches intentions were. I think his intentions are irrelevant. I think the school's actions were insulting, especially to the girls who lost.
I also think that there is something we are missing. The school must have had it in for the coach and used this situation as their opportunity to get rid of him. Their reaction seems extreme under the circumstances. Extreme win equals extreme firing. Hum?
-JD
Appreciate your thoughts on the post. It's pretty obvious that I'm more on your side of things than not, and I would definitely agree that the school's actions were insulting to the girls who lost. I would never be content with a win when I knew that there's no way I'd beat that team legitimately if we played them a hundred times (unless they cheated or were all on steroids or something...then I wouldn't feel as guilty accepting a win).
It's an interesting thought on having it in for the coach. It's certainly not impossible and the steps they took were drastic so it's not like they were being reasonable in their decision making. Regardless, the coach was only (I believe) 6-3 after this win, so it's not like the girls were dominating every game they played and it's not like they were losing a ton before this game either. So many more details I wish would be reported so people like me wouldn't have to assume things without knowing the facts. If they're going to make this national news for four days, someone should actually do the research and figure out all of the details. Having it in for the coach is an angle I didn't even think of but it isn't at all out of the question.
Mikey, I agree that the coach should not have been fired. There is a feeling that something was going on behind the scenes here. There was an apology issued for the win and the school petitioned to have the outcome reversed (resulting in a loss for the "100" team and a win for the "0" team).
While the coach may have acted inappropriately, nobody came down to the court and said stop. Nobody pulled their child off the court. Prior to media backlash, the administrators were likely very proud of their team for such a dominant performance. The administration was under fire for embarrassing a group of young girls and they needed to get out of the flames.
The coach was the scapegoat. Whether he acted correctly or not was irrelevant because the administration needed to appease the media and the public to stop the bad press.
I commend the girls that lost for staying on the court and trying the best they could and I respect the winning girls for not playing down to the competition (that's how HUGE upsets happen). Whichever school hires the coach that got fired will be lucky to have a strong competitor that motivates his players and stands by his decisions.
Is there no "mercy" rule in TX High School sports? We had them in football, baseball and softball. Not sure about volleyball or basketball because it never got to that point while I was a student.
If there were, I'm guessing none of this would have made the news outside of local media sports highlights.
I've never been an athlete. I, perhaps, was an athlete in the sense of being involved in sports, training, and competing in them, but I didn't have the passion for athletics. With that said, I've spent almost my entire athletic career on the bottom rung. Rarely have I enjoyed victory over others.
And yet, I am on the side of the coach. I find it ludicrous that he was eventually fired over this. We can make all the arguments about sportsmanship that we want, but one team lost and the other team won, and that's all that really went on here.
Never, throughout all of high school, did anyone "let up" on me. If I was pinned in a match, it was always as soon as the other guy could pin me. If I was passed in a race, the other guy ran as far from me as he could. I was shown no mercy, and I saw no problem with that. Many of those superior athletes sacrificed time and energy to extra workout sessions, weight-lifting, technique perfecting, and general improvement. I spent my time doing whatever-the-hell it was that I did instead. They sacrificed that time, and I sacrificed winning. That's just how it was.
Caesar showed no mercy when he conquered the world. The US showed no mercy when it stormed Normandy beach. Athletics is dress-up for war. That's how we think of it, instinctually, and that influences our behavior.
People die in wars.
-Scott: I would agree with the likelihood that the coach was forced into the scapegoat role. As you said, it's not like parents were yanking their daughters off the court in anger. But winning 100-0 has a way of taking people from "This is awesome" to "This is terrible." Which, as I've stated, I find pretty dumb. Completely agree on that being the way huge upsets happen as well.
-Holli: I'm not sure how it works. Clearly there must not be, but I'm wondering if basketball is the only sport that doesn't have it. It's frustrating because, as you bring up volleyball, no one would expect girls on a volleyball team to let the other team score a couple of points so they weren't winning 30-0. I know it's different because volleyball has an "end" to reach, but it's still a situation you'd never see.
-M!les: I agree with you entire comment. Minus being pinned. I never wrestled. But the rest of what you said, I agree with. Specifically that people die in wars. That's very true.
Post a Comment