High School Football Coach Fired For Running Up The Score

[Slyfox696]

I detest how seriously some people take their sports, to the point that they actually agree with the notion that someone should get fired for ANYTHING related to scores.

He didn't get fired for scores, he got fired for being an ass who disobeyed his school administration. And it seems like a pretty good bet he was running up the score.

Games are games. It's only "humiliating" if you want it to be.

Yeah, and calling a black person a ****** is only offensive if the black person allows it to be. Right?

The message you're sending is that they SHOULD be ashamed by their god-awful score, so ashamed in fact, that it is a job requirement for the opposing coach to pity you.

Why do people keep talking about pity? Sportsmanship has nothing to do with pity.

How about we stop giving a crap about scores and just let the kids go have fun? No matter if they lose by a point or by a landslide, they should be taught that it doesn't matter, because it really fucking doesn't.

I don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact it DOES matter. It matters to the kids, it matters to employers, it matters to fans. It matters.

I agree we let scores obfuscate the true value of sports, but as long as scores matter, kids can be embarrassed. And as long as that mentality exists, there's no reason to knowingly humiliate children.

 

[Slash-LN]

After looking around a little I found the team's season schedule.
The school clearly didn't fail to re-sign his contract because of the championship game considering they only won by 6 points.

http://www.maxpreps.com/high-school...ers-(virginia-beach,va)/football/schedule.htm

There definitely has to be more to this story.
The season ended November 16th and they waited until January to tell him they weren't going to renew his contract?

Also looking through the schedules of the teams they played it looks like it was fairly common for all the other teams to run up the scores in games. This doesn't seem to be an isolated thing with just this team.

 

[LSN80]

Contrary to what LSN intimated in his opening post, it IS possible to have kids play hard but without intentionally running up the score. How about instead of throwing the 20 yard pass, you just run the ball up the middle every time? Instead of going for it on 4th and inches, you punt.

I made part of this argument in my first post, but I also added a qualifier to it. It's easy to call "RB over Center" 15 plays in a row, and use your 2nd string players to do so. But what if the RB in those plays has a clear lane to the end zone? Do they stop short and take a knee? Because the embarassment created when that is done is just as bad as having the score run up in one's face.

The things that sports are supposed to espouse have long been forgotten, this is true. But there are also reasons why high school teams areable to run up the score on the other team. They're that much better, so much so that their second and third string players can dominate the other team's starters. That is humiliating enough, but when those 2nd and 3rd string players, with the coach still running the simplest plays, are still getting free, yet stop before they hit the end zone so as not to run up the score? It's pure humiliation.

The seniors on the other team, the ones who have been gashed all game, will have insult added to injury, knowing that the other team didn't respect their abilities enough to play out the game.

The Pittsburgh Steelers backups, Johnathan Dwyer over LeVeon Bell, Sean Moye over Antonio Brown, and Bruce Gradkowski over Ben Roethlisberger, are still going to destroy the Pitt Panthers every time, both teams know it, and anything the Steelers allowed the Panthers would be a gift. The Panthers would know it, and likely, be humiliated.

And sometimes, the disparity of talent is just as wide at the high school level. Here, it's likely the case, as the difference in scores between some regular season games(37-0, 62-6)and playoff games(45-23, 50-44) are a far cry from one another. And yes, I realize the main issue is that the coach ran up the score, against his principal's wishes, insubordinate as can be. It was within the AD and principal's discretion to fire him, and for the insubordination, I don't necessarily blame them.

But telling a coach and a team NOT to run the plays and schemes they practiced all week is counterintuitive to what great athletes have as their first instinct. And for many coaches, especially those who were great at some level, it's against their first instinct as well.

Not that it justifies insubordination.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I made part of this argument in my first post, but I also added a qualifier to it. It's easy to call "RB over Center" 15 plays in a row, and use your 2nd string players to do so. But what if the RB in those plays has a clear lane to the end zone?

Then no reasonable human being with any knowledge of football or sports in general would use the expression "running up the score".

Do they stop short and take a knee? Because the embarassment created when that is done is just as bad as having the score run up in one's face.

No, that would be stupid but it's probably better than running a flea flicker up by 30 late in the fourth quarter. But yes, taking a knee is insulting. I highly doubt the principal expected the coach to command his players to take a knee.

The things that sports are supposed to espouse have long been forgotten, this is true.

No their not. Sports have been vicious and corrupt at times for ever. Listen to some old timer NFL stories about eye gouging and foreign objects being used. Same with kids. We have our problems but more attention is called to it today than when I was a kid.

But there are also reasons why high school teams areable to run up the score on the other team. They're that much better, so much so that their second and third string players can dominate the other team's starters. That is humiliating enough, but when those 2nd and 3rd string players, with the coach still running the simplest plays, are still getting free, yet stop before they hit the end zone so as not to run up the score? It's pure humiliation.

But at least it shows compassion for the other team to put in the subs. Again, no reasonable person is going to accuse the coach of "running up the score" if he is using his subs and toning down his play calling.

The seniors on the other team, the ones who have been gashed all game, will have insult added to injury, knowing that the other team didn't respect their abilities enough to play out the game.

They should have thought of that when they were getting their asses kicked the rest of the game. Putting in subs and toning down the play calling shows compassion. By this point in the game it is established who the dominant team is, you show compassion in order to not further humiliate. Especially when you are talking about kids in amature sports.

The Pittsburgh Steelers backups, Johnathan Dwyer over LeVeon Bell, Sean Moye over Antonio Brown, and Bruce Gradkowski over Ben Roethlisberger, are still going to destroy the Pitt Panthers every time, both teams know it, and anything the Steelers allowed the Panthers would be a gift. The Panthers would know it, and likely, be humiliated.

And sometimes, the disparity of talent is just as wide at the high school level. Here, it's likely the case, as the difference in scores between some regular season games(37-0, 62-6)and playoff games(45-23, 50-44) are a far cry from one another. And yes, I realize the main issue is that the coach ran up the score, against his principal's wishes, insubordinate as can be. It was within the AD and principal's discretion to fire him, and for the insubordination, I don't necessarily blame them.

But telling a coach and a team NOT to run the plays and schemes they practiced all week is counterintuitive to what great athletes have as their first instinct. And for many coaches, especially those who were great at some level, it's against their first instinct as well.

Not that it justifies insubordination.

Instinct? Come on. Is coaching football an instinct like a bear finding salmon? That's kind of a stretch. Is running a more simplified offense and defense too much to handle like teaching sa dog not to sniff another dog's ass?

You're reaching.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

He didn't get fired for scores, he got fired for being an ass who disobeyed his school administration. And it seems like a pretty good bet he was running up the score.

I agree that he deserved dismissal to disobedience. Maybe a suspension was in order instead though. Then again, I don't know the full story or the extent of his disrespect for authority.

But I was referring to your post that criticized him for running up the score and didn't mention his disobedience. You attacked him for running up the score and humiliating the kids, which I don't think is grounds for firing alone.

Yeah, and calling a black person a ****** is only offensive if the black person allows it to be. Right?

You're comparing the humiliation of losing a game with a being addressed with a hatred-filled remark that plantation owners would scream out to their slaves. Instead of criticizing you for it, I think I can speak for both of us in saying that comparison is misguided.

A game is a game. It's only as important as you want it to be. You can't just choose how much importance you give to being part of a race with a tragic history of being undermined, insulted and enslaved. It's part of who you are.

Why do people keep talking about pity? Sportsmanship has nothing to do with pity.

Sportsmanship as a whole isn't synonymous with pity, but it definitely "has to do with it". And pity isn't a "bad word". According to google, it's the "the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others". There is no doubt that is definitely what you're saying the Coach should display.

I don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact it DOES matter. It matters to the kids, it matters to employers, it matters to fans. It matters.

I agree we let scores obfuscate the true value of sports, but as long as scores matter, kids can be embarrassed. And as long as that mentality exists, there's no reason to knowingly humiliate children.

"Humiliate" is such hyperbole, it's absurd to use it for something so miniscule as a high school football game. I swear I'm not trying to be a smart-ass and play a dictionary game, but here's another definition for context: "Humiliate: to make (someone) feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and self-respect, esp. publicly."

Is it really an attack on their dignity and self-respect to lose a football game? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd. If anything, we should teach these kids that getting your ass kicked is OKAY. That it means NOTHING. Overreacting to score differences and firing people just gives more credence to the idea that the outcomes of a petty sport are just as important as people's lives. And that's just ridiculous.

 

[Akhilleus]

Is it really an attack on their dignity and self-respect to lose a football game? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd. If anything, we should teach these kids that getting your ass kicked is OKAY. That it means NOTHING. Overreacting to score differences and firing people just gives more credence to the idea that the outcomes of a petty sport are just as important as people's lives. And that's just ridiculous.

It isn't really as much about the humiliation than it is the lack of sportsmanship displayed by the coach. Sportsmanship is an extremely important trait to have and to teach, and the coach is the one who is supposed to lead that example for the children playing.

That doesn't just stop in High School either. Sportsmanship goes all the way to the pros. Players who lack it are frowned upon. While it does appear to be dwindling in the modern day game, I still continue to shake my head in dismay when I see a player on tv or in the news who is displaying a lack of sportsmanship. I also find it extremely disgusting when I see a pro team blatantly run up the score. It happens, there aren't any rules against it, but it's just something I don't think is nessecary. I remember a Baltimore Ravens game from the 2012 season where it seemed they were running up the score big time, and it wasn't something I was impressed with.

As far as the humiliation goes, you are right it is just a game. But there are a lot of people watching in the stands. Dads that those players are trying to impress, and sons who are going to have to ride home with those dads on a trip of silence and disappointment. Not to forget all the extra up-downs and other conditioning their coach is going to make them do the next day at practice after giving up that many points.

There just is no point in it. It isn't the Cowboys are playing the Redskins in a big rivalry game where both teams hate each other. It's kids. Why rub it in? That's all running up the score is doing, is rubbing it in. Since when has gloating been acceptable in normal situations? It would be the same exact thing.

 

[LSN80]

Then no reasonable human being with any knowledge of football or sports in general would use the expression "running up the score".

Is it running up the score if each RB over Center played results in a TD? There should be no easier way to avoid embarrassing the other team, but if they can't stop it, should they keep trying plays until they find one the other team can stop?

If they other team can't stop a play, the coach knows it, and yet it should be the simplest of plays to stop, it's still running up the score. No matter how much easier the play should be to stop, if the other team can't stop it, then it is, no?

And, as this coach admitted, not every team even uses virtuous tactics towards the end of games. This coach admitted to "Running up the Score", and as such, it's teams like his that spawned said moniker.

No, that would be stupid but it's probably better than running a flea flicker up by 30 late in the fourth quarter. But yes, taking a knee is insulting. I highly doubt the principal expected the coach to command his players to take a knee.

I didn't say anything about using the entire playbook, rather, especially when a flea flicker isn't a common play. I think we're on the same page here, as the team with the commanding lead simply "giving up" possessions would embarass the other team just as much, if not greater.

Sometimes, the talent gap in sports is just too great. In high school, we once beat a team, the only time we ever scored over 100 points, 105-28.
Looking at that, it would seem the definition of running up the score, but it wasn't, at least, not in spirit. I, along w the other 4 starters, were taken out in the second quarter , never to see another second of playing time. We roated our 7 bench players, and they still destroyed the other team, 51-16. Sometimes, the talent gap is just too much, regardless of how much the team pulls back the reigns.

No their not. Sports have been vicious and corrupt at times for ever. Listen to some old timer NFL stories about eye gouging and foreign objects being used. Same with kids. We have our problems but more attention is called to it today than when I was a kid.

The virtues of sportsmanship, such as "May the best team win" has been replaced by many schools and professional teams with a "Win at All Costs" mentality far more often.

Not a week goes by that a legend from a particular sport doesn't talks about how sports have "lost their way", and how "traditions have been forgotten", the true "reason said sport was fo unded is gone", and how great athletes no longer with us must be "rolling over in their graves."

But at least it shows compassion for the other team to put in the subs. Again, no reasonable person is going to accuse the coach of "running up the score" if he is using his subs and toning down his play calling.

Even if the end result is the same? Wouldn't players be MORE embarrassed if they got their rears kicked by the second and third string, with play-calling simplified? I would think it worse.

They should have thought of that when they were getting their asses kicked the rest of the game.

You and I both know that it's not a mentality, it's physical ability and a large disparity in talent that causes a wide gap in score.

Putting in subs and toning down the play calling shows compassion. By this point in the game it is established who the dominant team is, you show compassion in order to not further humiliate. Especially when you are talking about kids in amature sports.

Compassion, or pity? And, as I said, I'm a proponent of emptying the bench, and calling less formidable plays. I'm also a proponent of fostering self-esteem, but not to the point where kids believe that 'everyone is the same.' And as I said before, getting your butt kicked by a second or third team with simplistic play calling is, logically, more embarrassing.

As for these 'kids in amateur sports', some will, less then a year later, move on to college, or in the case of basketball, professional sports. Where do you draw the line between preperation for the next level and helping a student get there, and compassion?

Instinct? Come on. Is coaching football an instinct like a bear finding salmon? That's kind of a stretch. Is running a more simplified offense and defense too much to handle like teaching sa dog not to sniff another dog's ass?

Not what I said. However, people are born selfish. Want to find the most selfish of persons, other then narcissists? Look at a first grade classroom. Those behavior have to be untaught, those such as slaughtering one's opponent without mercy. Both players and coaches once lived with that mentality, so yes, it's instinctive. Even more so in sports like basketball and football, where practices border on sadism. They're preparing players to be "at their best." When that's taught to you enough, it becomes instinctual.

You're reaching.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not. Sometimes the disparity in talent is simply that great.

I'm all for compassion, empathy, and kids having fun. Sports are just games, and 99% of those who play will never make a dime off of it. But I think there are valuable life lessons to be taught, and here, it's that sometimes, no matter what you do, your performance isn't good enough.

People lose jobs all the time that "try their best", and their competitors don't show them mercy, they're ruthless. Wall Street is one example. Should one person back off at being the best at their job, because despite giving 100% effort, the others aren't good enough?

And I know, there's a difference between high school and the real world, but many people go from high school TO the real world. Better they learn those lessons when there is no consequence rather then when there is, such as loss of job.

If a high school senior's psyche is that fragile that they can't handle devestating failure, they're in for a rough ride in the real world, especially those who don't go to college. I'm all for being compassionate and showing empathy, as long as it doesn't stunt one's growth, maturity speaking.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Is it running up the score if each RB over Center played results in a TD?

No, it's not. Sending your running back over center is a reasonable play call assuming a kneel down is not more reasonable. No coach, let alone a state champion coach would admit to "running up the score" if he called such a simple play.

There should be no easier way to avoid embarrassing the other team, but if they can't stop it, should they keep trying plays until they find one the other team can stop?

I don't expect them to.

If they other team can't stop a play, the coach knows it, and yet it should be the simplest of plays to stop, it's still running up the score. No matter how much easier the play should be to stop, if the other team can't stop it, then it is, no?

No, I don't know how that is "running up the score". It is scoring more but not "running up the score" (I'm really getting carried away with the quotes).

And, as this coach admitted, not every team even uses virtuous tactics towards the end of games. This coach admitted to "Running up the Score", and as such, it's teams like his that spawned said moniker.


I didn't say anything about using the entire playbook, rather, especially when a flea flicker isn't a common play. I think we're on the same page here, as the team with the commanding lead simply "giving up" possessions would embarass the other team just as much, if not greater.

Sometimes, the talent gap in sports is just too great. In high school, we once beat a team, the only time we ever scored over 100 points, 105-28.
Looking at that, it would seem the definition of running up the score, but it wasn't, at least, not in spirit. I, along w the other 4 starters, were taken out in the second quarter , never to see another second of playing time. We roated our 7 bench players, and they still destroyed the other team, 51-16. Sometimes, the talent gap is just too much, regardless of how much the team pulls back the reigns.

I commend you and your coach for those actions and decisions. I wouldn't accuse you of running up the score. It was an unfortunate circumstance that your coach tried to remedy that is commendable. From the information in the original post you provided I fail to believe this coach did the same.

The virtues of sportsmanship, such as "May the best team win" has been replaced by many schools and professional teams with a "Win at All Costs" mentality far more often.

Not true at all. Sports and youth sports have always had problems. It's only in the last 20 years that I have heard some people stress the aspect of having fun. I remember as a kid fights between the kids and even the parents. I remember the one little league coach every one hated because he had some control over the team rosters and would stack his team. Tonya Harding was 20ish years ago. The Black Sox Scandal. 1972? Men's Basketball Gold Medal Game. Pine tar. East German women. That cheerleader mom that tried to have another cheerleader killed. Spitballs. Spikes up.

Yes money, drugs, pussy, and media have made things seem worse but people have been assholes for a long time.

Not a week goes by that a legend from a particular sport doesn't talks about how sports have "lost their way", and how "traditions have been forgotten", the true "reason said sport was fo unded is gone", and how great athletes no longer with us must be "rolling over in their graves."

Old people like to bitch all the time. I know I'm becoming one. Fox News has build an empire on it. The generation before the previous always says this type of shit. Those same old people probably bitches about women being about to walk less than five feet behind their man.

You've seen some of my nostalgic wrestling posts, weren't they worth ignoring?

Even if the end result is the same? Wouldn't players be MORE embarrassed if they got their rears kicked by the second and third string, with play-calling simplified? I would think it worse.

Maybe, but isn't it better for them to blame themselves more the other team for being assholes.

You and I both know that it's not a mentality, it's physical ability and a large disparity in talent that causes a wide gap in score.


Compassion, or pity? And, as I said, I'm a proponent of emptying the bench, and calling less formidable plays.

Then you aren't "running up the score". Does this all come down to semantics? Am I using the word semantics right?

I'm also a proponent of fostering self-esteem, but not to the point where kids believe that 'everyone is the same.' And as I said before, getting your butt kicked by a second or third team with simplistic play calling is, logically, more embarrassing.

Maybe, but that's life. Your coach showed compassion to the other team. The other team should take from that the issue was with them or maybe the system instead of having an issue with your team. I think that is better.

As for these 'kids in amateur sports', some will, less then a year later, move on to college, or in the case of basketball, professional sports. Where do you draw the line between preperation for the next level and helping a student get there, and compassion?

Fuck! I knew I spelled amateur wrong.

I draw the line when the game is won or in this case essentially won. If someone is getting scholarships because they excelled in garbage time against garbage teams they probably don't deserve a scholarship.


[QUOTE$
Not what I said. However, people are born selfish. Want to find the most selfish of persons, other then narcissists? Look at a first grade classroom. Those behavior have to be untaught, those such as slaughtering one's opponent without mercy. Both players and coaches once lived with that mentality, so yes, it's instinctive. Even more so in sports like basketball and football, where practices border on sadism. They're preparing players to be "at their best." When that's taught to you enough, it becomes instinctual.

If it were that simple there would be no point to having coaches, the players would just go out and kill each other.

No, I'm not. Sometimes the disparity in talent is simply that great.

I'm all for compassion, empathy, and kids having fun. Sports are just games, and 99% of those who play will never make a dime off of it. But I think there are valuable life lessons to be taught, and here, it's that sometimes, no matter what you do, your performance isn't good enough.

And that was well established when the game was virtually lost. No need to poor salt on the wound.

People lose jobs all the time that "try their best", and their competitors don't show them mercy, they're ruthless. Wall Street is one example. Should one person back off at being the best at their job, because despite giving 100% effort, the others aren't good enough?

Kind of yes but this is different. The goal of winning the game is essentially met, it may never be met in the workplace.

And I know, there's a difference between high school and the real world,

Well I just totally wasted my last point.

but many people go from high school TO the real world. Better they learn those lessons when there is no consequence rather then when there is, such as loss of job.

True, but in the football game case the lesson is already learned once the game is essentially lost. At that point you show what little compassion you can.

If a high school senior's psyche is that fragile that they can't handle devestating failure, they're in for a rough ride in the real world, especially those who don't go to college. I'm all for being compassionate and showing empathy, as long as it doesn't stunt one's growth, maturity speaking.

The devastating failure is established. I'm just saying don't make it worse because it makes it seem you care more about your own greed and ego then do the feelings of the other team. Sounds like you agree with this by your 105-28 story.

Who would win a game of one on one, you or Sly?

 

[Slyfox696]

I made part of this argument in my first post, but I also added a qualifier to it. It's easy to call "RB over Center" 15 plays in a row, and use your 2nd string players to do so. But what if the RB in those plays has a clear lane to the end zone? Do they stop short and take a knee? Because the embarassment created when that is done is just as bad as having the score run up in one's face.

Not really. If you're taking all the time on the play clock, running straight up the middle with the last guys on your bench, there's no perception of running up the score.

The things that sports are supposed to espouse have long been forgotten, this is true. But there are also reasons why high school teams areable to run up the score on the other team. They're that much better, so much so that their second and third string players can dominate the other team's starters. That is humiliating enough, but when those 2nd and 3rd string players, with the coach still running the simplest plays, are still getting free, yet stop before they hit the end zone so as not to run up the score? It's pure humiliation.

I'm not saying they should quit playing hard. I've said the exact opposite. But running misdirection plays, throwing passes, staying in a hurry up offense, etc. are much different than simply having backups running it up the middle.

But telling a coach and a team NOT to run the plays and schemes they practiced all week is counterintuitive to what great athletes have as their first instinct.

I have my suspicions the caliber of these athletes are elite. But more than that, no it's not counterintuitive. The players are trained to do what the coach wants. The coach should be coaching, not for personal glory, but for kids and the love of the game. Not running up a score on kids who are playing the game because they enjoy it is not counterintuitive at all.

And for many coaches, especially those who were great at some level, it's against their first instinct as well.

Then those coaches are in high school coaching for the wrong reasons.

But I was referring to your post that criticized him for running up the score and didn't mention his disobedience. You attacked him for running up the score and humiliating the kids, which I don't think is grounds for firing alone.

I agree, but it is grounds for thinking poorly of the man.

You're comparing the humiliation of losing a game with a being addressed with a hatred-filled remark that plantation owners would scream out to their slaves. Instead of criticizing you for it, I think I can speak for both of us in saying that comparison is misguided.

It's not though, it's showing you the problem with your statement.

Any time we're talking about feelings or emotions, we can simply say "oh, well you SHOULDN'T be offended/humiliated by it". It doesn't change the fact they are offended/humiliated. And since this is not an isolated concept, but rather universal (at least in America), then you can't simply explain it away with "they shouldn't feel that way".

A game is a game. It's only as important as you want it to be.

And words are words and they have no real value, aside from the arbitrary value we ascribe to them. You can't change what is simply by saying it shouldn't.

You can't just choose how much importance you give to being part of a race with a tragic history of being undermined, insulted and enslaved. It's part of who you are.

And it's part of our history in society and culture to feel embarrassed when you are shown to be woefully inferior in some manner.

Sportsmanship as a whole isn't synonymous with pity, but it definitely "has to do with it". And pity isn't a "bad word". According to google, it's the "the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others". There is no doubt that is definitely what you're saying the Coach should display.

Sportsmanship doesn't have anything to do with pity. Sportsmanship is the recognition of the difference between people and a game. It's the understanding you can compete hard without it being personal. It's the realization that the sport is secondary to the person. Sportsmanship, as I'm sure you know, is not limited to a lopsided score.

"Humiliate" is such hyperbole, it's absurd to use it for something so miniscule as a high school football game.

But it's not. It's an accurate description of what it means to run up the score.

Is it really an attack on their dignity and self-respect to lose a football game?

If that is what you're intending, of course it is. Whether your attack is successful depends on how it is perceived by the losing team, but yes, it is still an attack.

If anything, we should teach these kids that getting your ass kicked is OKAY.

I do not disagree. But you don't teach a child about heat by holding their hand to the stove.

When I coach, my message to my team is always the same, "If you are successful, meaning you play the absolute best you can play, then the score won't matter. You'll beat the teams you're supposed to beat, and may even sneak up on a few you shouldn't".

I agree the message should change, but it doesn't remove the fact kids still find it humiliating.

You keep talking about what should be, and I'm not disagreeing. I'm just also recognizing what is.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Out of curiosity, to better understand how the coach was running up the scores I checked the final scores and the scores for each quarter. My personal opinion is that the idea of a person running up a score his team has to be up by at least 4 touchdowns to do so (for this I'm going off the fact that my shithole High School football team has overcame 4 TD deficits. If they can do it then its not a stretch for other High School teams to do the same). Under that principle I decided to check the scores of each game:

Blowouts:


Game 1 (37-0), Game 3 (51-10), Game 4 (49 - 22 (note this isn't 4 touchdowns but close enough)), Week 6 (66-32), Game 8 (45-18), Game 9 (62-6), Game 10 (42-13).

From looking at those scores 7 blowouts out of 12 is a pretty high percentage but when you check out the box scores for each quarter its very noticeable that when the second half comes the team pretty much disappears in scoring. Here are some points:

Take Games 8-10 for example, in all cases the most Bishop Sullivan scored in the second half is 7 points. Hard to accuse a guy for running up the score if his team goes from scoring 56 in the 1st half to 6 in the 2nd half, sounds to me he's easing up quite a lot.

Their 1st game was their highest scoring 2nd half of all the blowouts (18 points) but the team didn't have the victory secure yet so its perfectly understandable to play hard in the 3rd quarter (where they scored their 18 points), secure the game and just take it easy in the 4th (which going by the box scores, they did).

Their week 4 blowout was a 13 point game until the 4th quarter in which they scored 2 touchdowns. Once again totally understandable.

Their week 6 blowout they only scored 12 points in the second half while their opponents scored 20. Week 3 was the only game I couldn't get quarterly box scores for.

Going by this information I can't accuse the coach of trying to humiliate the "children" (I'm quoting because they're in high school, we're not talking about 8 year olds here), if that was true then his scores would be A LOT higher than what they were and the last 3 blowouts the team never went past 7 points in the 2nd half. Even though the scores were lopsided it's perfectly understandable to play hard in the 1st half and tone it down if the score is one sided in the 2nd half.

Scenarios where teams were being blown out 56-0 in the 1st half are very common in High School sports, playing on a absolutely horrendous high school team I would know pretty damn good. We had one team that would absolutely run roughshod over every team in the league (to give you an example there are 2 teams in the town I grew up in. This team beat both teams by an average of 67 POINTS, true story). In the 1st half they would kill us, 2nd half they would ease up, do things like punt on 2nd down (in Canada its 3 down football), only run basic running plays, bench the starters, ect. The idea was that his team already played hard and won so after that they would ease up in the 2nd half. We would still get humiliated (losing 63 nothing ain't fun) but the coach could have beat us by over 100 points if he wanted to, but he didn't (Interesting fact, that coach would always give us words of encouragement after his team killed us. Thought that was really cool to do.). Even though they would murder every single team they played no one ever called him out for running up scores, no one ever got upset, no one felt embarrassed and not once did anyone complain about that coach (and some of those victories would make the Bishop Sullivan coach look like a saint in comparison).

The reason I bring this up is looking at Bishop Sullivan's box scores it seems as if they were doing something similar, why else would their scoring disappear in the 2nd half? They've shown in their closer games that they are more than capable of scoring in the 2nd half if they need to but they can't score big in the 2nd half against teams they are vastly superior than? Sorry but its obvious Coach Turner wasn't trying to humiliate anyone.

Secondly, its hard to take the school seriously for firing him either. In his 1st 4 games Bishop Sullivan won their games by a total point differential of 136 points (an average of 34 points a game) yet they didn't fire Turner then, and this was before their games got more competitive. They decided to wait until he won a STATE title before they decided to get rid of him. Why wasn't he fired after week 4? The school didn't care that much the scores got ran up, they didn't care that much that the opposition got beat badly, if they did they would have corrected the situation right away and not wait until he won them a state title and made the school a buttload of money.

Now I'm pretty cynical but here's how I see it:

1) Turner didn't try to humiliate anyone or else it would show in the box scores.

2) Anytime the scores were lopsided his team would ease up GREATLY, once again shown by the box scores.

3) We're dealing with High School kids here. These aren't 10 year old's who are learning how to play. These are kids who practice every day, go to the gym and had to actually try out to make the team. If they are just playing for "fun" they would just play a game of touch football in a field somewhere. They aren't just playing for fun, they are playing to win as well.

4) What happened with Bishop Sullivan isn't anything out of the ordinary with high school sports.

5) If this was truly a huge deal for the school that Coach Turner ran up the scores they would have fired him after week 4. They fired him because the school most likely got a ton of complaints from a bunch of whiny parents who coddle their kids way too much and it got to a point where the school had to do something. Someone obviously pushed the schools hand to fire Coach Turner or he would have been fired 2 months before the season ended (where the running up the score argument holds the most merit).

6) If reason 5 isn't the reason Turner got fired then he did something else to cause his termination that's not being covered here.

I understand trying to protect kids from humiliation and all of that but its hard to believe Turner did that going from the information given. Also, these are kids between the ages of 16-18, you better believe most take their sports very seriously on the high school level. Whether they should or not is a different debate altogether (personally I don't think people should take sports seriously at all) but the truth is that's not the world we live in. As humans a lot of us don't just play games for fun, we want to want to win too (because winning is fun in itself). Since the dawn of man people have often tried to show their superiority to one another whether it was gladiators in the Colosseum, countries going to war, or kids in Ireland playing a pick up game of Football, you want to win, plain and simple. I'm a firm believer in being a humble winner, you don't have to go out of your way to embarrass the opponent but your first and foremost goal is to win. With Turner he would let up when his team was in command, it's hard to buy into him trying to run the scores up to humiliate his opponents and it looks like he did quite a bit to ensure his team wasn't trying to humiliate anyone (although in some cases it happened because his team was that much better).

On a closing note you can't treat 16 year old's in this matter the same way you would treat a 8 year old who is just learning how to play the sport. High School sports have always been highly competitive and students should know that going in. Sometimes people win big, sometimes people lose big, instead of trying to protect them its a better course of action to teach them how to handle those situations and by the time a kid is in high school they should know that. By 16 the only thing I would get at my house is a roof over my head, clothes, food and I even got my ass handed to me on the football field numerous times. I knew how to handle losing big, so did my team. We were teenagers and we were old enough to handle these situations without protection from others. We thought we knew a lot more than we did as a teenager but when it came to sports we could all handle ourselves quite well, we would get mad when we lost so we would try harder next game, we would change practice accordingly but we would all move on from that huge loss. At the end of the day losing a football game by 66 points isn't a big deal and even at 16 years old myself and the other 30 players on my high school football team knew that.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

You keep talking about what should be, and I'm not disagreeing. I'm just also recognizing what is.

Fair point. I just think we could change what is if we start embracing what should be.

I think that no matter what, we should try and embrace the idea that games aren't important in the grand scheme of things. Once you become obsessed over it, it stops being fun.

Now, you can argue he was being obsessive when he was running up the score. But I don't know. It's his job to teach these kids a sport, a pastime. The goal of the game is to score. He taught them how to keep scoring even though they already won.

Is that a bad thing? I don't know. There are plenty of games that have clear winners before they are over. In Monopoly, should the obvious winner stop collecting rent once he's past that point when the winner is clear? Should you start folding on good hands in Poker because everyone else is close to getting busted? Should you not take out the rest of his pawns once you've clearly decimated someone in Chess? Should you not aim for the KO in boxing because your opponent is clearly losing if it went to decision anyway?

I wouldn't condone any of the above behaviors. A lot of schools have the Mercy Rule which ends a game early when the winner is clear (like the famous 7-0 Skunk Rule in ping-pong). I'm definitely in favor of rules like this. If you don't want kids to keep playing the game, then end it. There's no point in keeping them on the field pretending they're playing when they're really just stalling for the clockto run out.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

So do any of you think the Seahawks were running up the score on Sunday? The massacre was brutal.

 

[Akhilleus]

So do any of you think the Seahawks were running up the score on Sunday? The massacre was brutal.

43 points isn't exactly THAT high in today's modern game, and considering it was against the Broncos who have been running the score up all season long they have no right to complain. But no, that wasn't running up the score.

It was already 22-0 at halftime. A dominant score, but not a score where you should let up any bit considering you're playing against a guy who's come back from 24 point deficits before. The next score was a kick returning touchdown, something that when you get the opportunity to go for you don't slow down. It's the Super Bowl, and it's the NFL. And you don't let up, and when you're playing the number one offense in the league you definitely don't let up. The Seahawks got a couple more scores to make sure there was no chance of a comeback, and then they benched most of their starting players.

That is not what I consider running up the score. Add on the fact that these are grown men playing for money and playing for the Lombardi Trophy, and not high school kids playing for fun, and it proves the points that many others have made in this thread even further.

 

[Slyfox696]

So do any of you think the Seahawks were running up the score on Sunday? The massacre was brutal.

I don't think any reasonable person would have thought that was running up the score. Furthermore, I think said reasonable person would understand the difference between professionals and high school kids.

 

[ABMorales787]

The freakin' prick sounds like a villain coach in a high school football movie. Whats the kind of guy that does that kind of stuff in that type of movie? The prick coach who'd go to any length to win and insult anyone that he see's doing wrong along the way, right?

This is the coach on a catholic high school that's trying to teach it's students the values of sportsmanship and such. There's more than one way to win a football game and scoring for the sake of scoring is a pointless act. When the Seahawks did it, they were going against the best team in the NFL, had never won a championship in it's entire history and it was the freakin' Superbowl. They could not afford any margin of error and at the same time stats continue to matter past win and losing in the NFL.

This coach clearly defied a rule that for all intents and purposes might be a league rule. He showed off for the sake of showing off. There isn't 80,000 paying fans and a worldwide audience to satisfy here. Just parents that came to watch their kids. The school did the right think in cutting him off for his dysfunctional conduct.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

I don't think any reasonable person would have thought that was running up the score. Furthermore, I think said reasonable person would understand the difference between professionals and high school kids.

I think there is a difference and to a certain extent I agree with you, but they did seem to pump the breaks during the second half, and personally when I was in high school our most embarrassing loss in football my freshman year wasn't the one where the other team out scored us by the most (56-2 or something like that) it was a 40-0 blowout where in the second half they ran the fullback up the gut like 25 times . As a corner I wanted them to throw it another 30 times. And I know I'm not everyone, but when the other team stops trying and you still look like crap. It's more heartbreaking than losing by 80 to me. I would've rather they beat us by 60 than just quit. Both losses fueled our team but the one where the team just gave in, just killed us. It was so embarrassing two years later the team faced us again and rubbed it in our faces all week until the game. And the only reason we ever heard the end of it was we beat them by like twenty.

The other thing we tell kids is that you don't quit, that you always try your best, that the score isn't indicative of how hard you played. That said I want the third stringer trying his hardest not just kneeing it. Again I understand I'm not everyone, I'm just looking at it from a different perceptive. I don't think they should be running fly routes all second half but slats and curls and outs. I have little problem with that.

Now he was warned but I hate seeing someone losing their job because they're "too good". Play hard and to the best of your ability doesn't go one way for me. If he put in the second string or third string, I'd rather have those kids trying their hardest than just laying down for me.