Running up the score

[Galaxy]

In the lastest issue of SI, an article talks about a HS football coach running up the score. However, he did not try to. The coach put in the reserves and called only inside running plays. With 9 minutes to go in the third quarter, up 52-0, he told his QB to take a knee. He decided it might be more humiliating to the coach of the other team to do this. Final score was
60-0. However, Connecticut passed a new "Sportmanship" rule that requires the coach to be suspended for the next game if a team wins by 50 or more points.


I find this a poor attempt to teach sportsmanship. If a head coach is truly doing everything in his ability to try to keep the score from "running up", then why punish the team for being that much better? What if the next game has a playoff spot on the line, or is against a top team? Or why not just use a mercy rule?

[Joe]

because the rules are made by those who always got their ass beat in sports

[PilotMan]

I did read that the coach of the other team did go to the board on behalf of the coach, and was lobbying for him not to be punished. I never did hear what the final judgement on it was though. It would be a miscarrige of justice if he was suspended.

[wishbone]

Couldn't the other team find a handicapped kid to score a pair of touchdowns or somehing?

[Galaxy]

I did read that the coach of the other team did go to the board on behalf of the coach, and was lobbying for him not to be punished. I never did hear what the final judgement on it was though. It would be a miscarrige of justice if he was suspended.

The article said the team won the next weekend, while the head coach went out scouting a future opponent.

[Glengoyne]

Couldn't the other team find a handicapped kid to score a pair of touchdowns or somehing?

Well played.

[bulletsponge]

because the rules are made by those who always got their ass beat in sports

so true

[wade moore]

because the rules are made by those who always got their ass beat in sports

Give this man a cookie.

[cartman]

Instead of suspending coaches, they should do like what a lot of other states do and simply not stop the clock once a team is up by 40 or 50 points.

[stevew]

Instead of suspending coaches, they should do like what a lot of other states do and simply not stop the clock once a team is up by 40 or 50 points.

Or just end the fucking game altogether once one team is up by 42, if their state is one that wants to play pussy football. So true about the kid who got picked last in gym class being the one who makes rules.

[Raiders Army]

Although I didn't start a new thread about it:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1261906&postcount=7

[rowech]

A local boys soccer tournament game in Ohio high school ended last night 23-0. The coach doing the running did not "call off the dogs" in the way he should have. This team they played had 4 girls, and is in their second or third year of even playing soccer.

It's a tough call because they ideally should never play each other but alas, in the tournament they do. The coach did a poor job but the game should have been called at the half when it was 12-0.

[albionmoonlight]

At the college or professional level, I think that there should be no concept of "running up the score." To me, the competition at that level is more even and the players are not as much in a learning mode.

In high school and below, however, I think that there is still a value in teaching the players about sportsmanship and professionalism. Clearly, based on this thread, that is a "pussy" notion and antiquated.

But, if it were me, I'd start a running clock or call the game or do something of that nature once the margin between the teams got up to a certain number.

[Klinglerware]

A couple of thoughts. The rule was instituted here due to the exploits of one coach, Jack Cochran. He definitely had a reputation for running it up, beating one team last year 90-0. He got forced out because he assaulted another coach this past summer, but his legacy lives on since everybody now calls it the "Jack Cochran rule".

Building a 90 point lead does seem a bit excessive. But a mercy rule like this probably isn't really the way to rectify this. In reality, at the heart of the issue here is that Connecticut doesn't really do a good job of separating schools with divergent enrollments--large urban schools often play in the same leagues with schools in much smaller towns. Many of these schools have no business playing each other in the first place.

When you get a situation where one school can go 3 or 4 deep, while their opponent can only round up 25 or 30 players total to come out for football, that leads to potentially dangerous injury situations. This is not the inferior team playing "pussy football", it's the CIAC putting that team in a situation they should never have been in to begin with.

[lynchjm24]

A couple of thoughts. The rule was instituted here due to the exploits of one coach, Jack Cochran. He definitely had a reputation for running it up, beating one team last year 90-0. He got forced out because he assaulted another coach this past summer, but his legacy lives on since everybody now calls it the "Jack Cochran rule".

Building a 90 point lead does seem a bit excessive. But a mercy rule like this probably isn't really the way to rectify this. In reality, at the heart of the issue here is that Connecticut doesn't really do a good job of separating schools with divergent enrollments--large urban schools often play in the same leagues with schools in much smaller towns. Many of these schools have no business playing each other in the first place.

When you get a situation where one school can go 3 or 4 deep, while their opponent can only round up 25 or 30 players, that leads to potentially dangerous injury situations. This is not the inferior team playing "pussy football", it's the CIAC putting that team in a situation they should never have been in to begin with.

I know Jack Cochran. You can't believe the shit he would do in a game. He would be up 63-0, call for an onside kick and then taunt the opposing coach.
It's just a shame he isn't around to be suspended every other game this year.

High school football in Connecticut is not like other places. I was the line judge for a varsity game in a fairly large city last Friday night. There might have been 20 adults in the stands at kickoff - and besides the band, 20 students. There might be 5 schools in the whole state that average 1,000 fans, I once did a Hartford Public game that was played in front of a crowd of less then 30 in a stadium that holds at least 2,500 people. I worked a JV game at Weaver (Hartford), and there was not a single person in attendance besides the players, coaches and officials. They had to drag 3 kids out of detention to handle the chains.

Everyone hates the rule, and it won't be around next year. They know they need to do something about the huge amount of blowouts but not one coach on the committee wanted this rule. To give you an idea how many blowouts there are, I officiated varsity games for 3 years before I worked a game that had a winning margin of less then 35, it must have been my 15th game before I broke that barrier. In my fifth season, I've done 1 game that was what you would call close and it was between two winless teams.

[Ben E Lou]

because the rules are made by those who always got their ass beat in sportsFt. Worth just became my 2nd-favorite team in IHOF.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I once did a Hartford Public game that was played in front of a crowd of less then 30 in a stadium that holds at least 2,500 people.

Pish tosh. I once announced a game that had a crowd of less than 50 paid in a stadium that holds 13,000.

(In case SD & the rest of the GA high school contingent sees this, Carver vs Griffin at Memorial Stadium in Columbus on a Saturday night back in either 2000 or 2001.)

[Buccaneer]

I think that there is still a value in teaching the players about sportsmanship and professionalism

Not when there are many that think sports is life. Sportmanship hasn't been around in a while - too much money to be made. Besides, what else is there for the obnoxious, fat ex-jock to do in life?

[Ben E Lou]

(In case SD & the rest of the GA high school contingent sees this, Carver vs Griffin at Memorial Stadium in Columbus on a Saturday night back in either 2000 or 2001.)
That one doesn't surprise me at all. Carver's community has really fallen off, and Griffin doesn't travel well. When they came to Tucker in around '02, I was surprised at how few people came to see them, considering the magnitude of the game, and the fact that it was less than an hour drive from there to DeKalb Memorial.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Jon, you'll appreciate this. My mother went to Spencer, obviously well before integration. According to her, Carver-Spencer used to fill up Columbus Memorial nearly as heavily as Georgia-Auburn did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Carver's community has really fallen off, and Griffin doesn't travel well.

I can only assume that things have picked up a little at C-C since that old guy that coached them forever left (Davis?) and they've started winning a bit more often now. That was, however, the sorriest excuse for a crowd I've ever seen at any game. We were literally able to count every single person in the crowd by hand during a commercial break. Not even the bands were there (IIRC, one had a competition that afternoon & was late arriving while the other basically "doesn't do Saturdays").

But by golly, come Homecoming at C-C, it's a F'N SHOW. Every class subject has h-c court representatives ("Miss 11th Grade English") and they cover the entire length of the field when introduced.

[Craptacular]

Not when there are many that think sports is life. Sportmanship hasn't been around in a while - too much money to be made. Besides, what else is there for the obnoxious, fat ex-jock to do in life?

Bucc posted most of my thoughts. I really, REALLY hate poor sportsmanship, especially in things like high school sports, rec leagues, etc. Until this year, I had been pitching in an adult softball rec league. We were pretty dominant, and some of my teammates occasionally pushed the limits (at least in my mind) of sportsmanship. My "favorite" was in one game that we had well in hand in the last inning. Our 2B-SS combo executed a picture-perfect 4-6-3 double play ... the problem was there were no runners on base. This was not a situation where 2B made a diving backhand stop and was better off flipping it to SS than trying to make a throw from his back ... they were just showing up the other team. Some people may not have thought it was so bad, but I know a few of our opponents were none too pleased, and I was embarrased to be on our team.

The running clock rule in HS football seems to be a perfectly legitimate policy, although I agree punishing coaches who win by more than a certain amount is not the way to go. TMQ's example is a perfect illustration.

[Buccaneer]

Craptacular, I think that's a good illustration. In some circles, however, you would be called a "weenie". :)

[ISiddiqui]

Craptacular, I think that's a good illustration. In some circles, however, you would be called a "weenie". :)

It's a shame my friend... though in this era, sportsmanship is just about dead. Not every 50 point win is bad sportsmanship, but plenty are. And, of course, it just takes one guy to ruin it for everyone.

[Oilers9911]

Or just end the fucking game altogether once one team is up by 42, if their state is one that wants to play pussy football. So true about the kid who got picked last in gym class being the one who makes rules.

This macho bullshit is so annoying. Pussy football blah blah. What the hell is the difference if they run the clock from the time the score reaches 42-0? So the game might end 49-0 instead of 60-0? That is "pussy football"? In my men's hockey league the clock runs non-stop if there is a 5 goal or more difference in the third period and I don't think it is "pussy hockey". Kids dont need to lose 70-0 to learn something about the game and life. 50-0 will do quite well thank you. I guess this makes me a pussy?

[Ben E Lou]

I HATE running clocks. Always have, always will. It unfairly penalizes the kids who work hard, but are third or fourth on the depth charts. These games are the only ones where those kids would ever get to play for a decent amount of time.

[Oilers9911]

I HATE running clocks. Always have, always will. It unfairly penalizes the kids who work hard, but are third or fourth on the depth charts. These games are the only ones where those kids would ever get to play for a decent amount of time.

Ok, that is a good point. Maybe not running the clocks then but some method of keeping the score down is not a bad thing.

[wade moore]

I'm actually pretty mixed on this.

I think a lot of the rules put in place to prevent "running up the score" border on absurd. To just blanket suspend a coach for it seems to be one of them to me.

I agree that there is sportsmanship in not running up the score. And in an ideal world, every coach would do everything they could to not run up the score. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. If you want to discipline a coach for it (I think that's the right thing to do, rather than punish the kids - particularly the 3rd and 4th stringers like SD mentions) then have some sort of "review" of all games of 50 points or more or something. Idano.. I just think a purely objective rule like this is just riddled with potential problems.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ok, that is a good point. Maybe not running the clocks then but some method of keeping the score down is not a bad thing.

Define "some method".

No, seriously. The same issue raised (which you agreed is a "good point") by the running clock is raised by most any of the other rules designed to keep a superior team from scoring heavily against an inferior team.

Once you try to legislate a team into scoring less, you move away from football (or any other sport where this comes up) and usually run into something that denies the reserves on the better team a chance to see real game action.

Other than just running dive plays into the middle of the line, I'm not sure if there's any way to limit scoring without penalizing the members of the better team. And even that is no sure thing in some of the mismatches, especially if the team down by sixty has basically quit at that point.

I've been watching HS sports pretty closely for somewhere around 30 years & darned if I've yet to come up with a solution that seems equitable and workable. The best step I've come up with is to do a better job of dividing up classifications/regions/sections/et al and work with coaches/administrations on how to do a better job of scheduling. Certainly wouldn't eliminate the situation entirely but it would at least reduce the number of times it happens.

edit to add: One of the attempted solutions that I've been tempted by at times is some sort of promotion/relegation system that isn't based on school size but rather on performance. But here's a great example of why that doesn't work very well at the HS level.

Lowndes County HS in 2005: 14-1, State Champs, allowed only 100 pts in 15 games (6.7), scored 540 points (36). Their regular season included 5 games with an aggregate score of 229-12.

Same school this year: 4-2 , total scoring 128-77. In other words, pretty good but nothing like world beaters, may not even make the playoffs.

Point being that at this level, things are often very volatile as it is, there's not a reliable way to make a promotion/relegation system work that would improve the situation over what we have now.

[albionmoonlight]

Good point, SD. I hadn't really thought of that. I don't know if it changes my mind, but I am more on the fence on the subject.

[wade moore]

I've been watching HS sports pretty closely for somewhere around 30 years & darned if I've yet to come up with a solution that seems equitable and workable. The best step I've come up with is to do a better job of dividing up classifications/regions/sections/et al and work with coaches/administrations on how to do a better job of scheduling. Certainly wouldn't eliminate the situation entirely but it would at least reduce the number of times it happens.

The only other thing I can think of is for parents and the community to put pressure on the administration of a school if a coach does this repetitively. Is it worth punishing a coach/school if they outscore their opponent heavily in a game every couple of years? Doubtful. Is it worth punishing a coach/school if they do this in half of their games in a season? Maybe. Seems like this school in CT where the coach was infamous for this, the way to deal with it is for parents and the community to put pressure on the school administration. Or for opposing schools to refuse to play them.

Putting rules built into the game or the league just doesn't seem like the right answer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is it worth punishing a coach/school if they do this in half of their games in a season? Maybe. Seems like this school in CT where the coach was infamous for this, the way to deal with it is for parents and the community to put pressure on the school administration. Or for opposing schools to refuse to play them.

See the example I added to my post above. LCHS would qualify for blowouts in half their games ... but they aren't particularly known for trying to run up the score. I'd wager that their starters played right around 2 quarters in those blowouts last year. And 3 of their biggest blowouts came later in the year during the state playoffs, including a 49-7 win in the championship game. It's not like they were playing the weakest teams they could find. They did what they could but at some point you can only do so much.

As for the refuse to play option, take the opposite end of the spectrum in school size & look at Lincoln Co. HS. They've won their last 3 games by a combined score of 132-0 ... but those are region games, in other words, they have to play those teams, it isn't optional for either side. Granted now, we're talking about a long time powerhouse in their classification and defending state champs, but go back just to 2002 & they were 7-5, certainly quite ordinary. The next year they went 14-1 losing only in the state final to another very good team.

[14ers]

Or just end the fucking game altogether once one team is up by 42, if their state is one that wants to play pussy football. So true about the kid who got picked last in gym class being the one who makes rules.
I wouldn't of put it this way, but why is this such a difficult idea to accept?


Seems like such an easy solution to this problem. We all grew up with these rules in little league and grade school, so why not high school? It seems like the fairest way to address this problem.

You do not have to ask one team to take a dive in the last quarter of a football game so the other team can feel good about themselves. Just let both teams play "all out" for the entire game. No matter if the game lasts just 3 Qtrs.

[wade moore]

See the example I added to my post above. LCHS would qualify for blowouts in half their games ... but they aren't particularly known for trying to run up the score. I'd wager that their starters played right around 2 quarters in those blowouts last year. And 3 of their biggest blowouts came later in the year during the state playoffs, including a 49-7 win in the championship game. It's not like they were playing the weakest teams they could find. They did what they could but at some point you can only do so much.

As for the refuse to play option, take the opposite end of the spectrum in school size & look at Lincoln Co. HS. They've won their last 3 games by a combined score of 132-0 ... but those are region games, in other words, they have to play those teams, it isn't optional for either side. Granted now, we're talking about a long time powerhouse in their classification and defending state champs, but go back just to 2002 & they were 7-5, certainly quite ordinary. The next year they went 14-1 losing only in the state final to another very good team.

So I guess my sweeping point still stands - objective rules that take nothing subjective into account just doesn't make sense.

[Mr. Wednesday]

A local boys soccer tournament game in Ohio high school ended last night 23-0. The coach doing the running did not "call off the dogs" in the way he should have. This team they played had 4 girls, and is in their second or third year of even playing soccer.

It's a tough call because they ideally should never play each other but alas, in the tournament they do. The coach did a poor job but the game should have been called at the half when it was 12-0.

Tournaments are problematic, as goal differential may be a tiebreaker and the rules may not place a cap on the maximum GD that can be earned in a given game. If neither is the case, then I agree that this looks like bad behavior on the part of the winning team.

[AgustusM]

years ago I coached a high school frosh team and we killed everyone we played. I think we averaged something like 50+ points a game and only gave up maybe 30 points in the entire season.

So basically every game by half time we were trying to keep the score reasonable, play all of our backups, etc. Problem for us was the conventional wisdom is that when you run you are "taking it easy" and when you pass you are running up the score. which is fine, except this was freshman football and that axim is turned on its head. we averaged about 12 yards a carry on the run (hell the starter averaged 25 yards a carry!) but could only complete about 30% of our passes. even or 4th and 5th running backs were getting 8 yards a carry. so often we passed late in games and I had to listen to comments from fans about us trying to run up the score. Of course the opposing coaches for the most part understood we were passing to keep the score down, but the average football fan knows very little about football.

[dawgfan]

Define "some method".

No, seriously. The same issue raised (which you agreed is a "good point") by the running clock is raised by most any of the other rules designed to keep a superior team from scoring heavily against an inferior team.

Once you try to legislate a team into scoring less, you move away from football (or any other sport where this comes up) and usually run into something that denies the reserves on the better team a chance to see real game action.

Other than just running dive plays into the middle of the line, I'm not sure if there's any way to limit scoring without penalizing the members of the better team. And even that is no sure thing in some of the mismatches, especially if the team down by sixty has basically quit at that point.

I've been watching HS sports pretty closely for somewhere around 30 years & darned if I've yet to come up with a solution that seems equitable and workable. The best step I've come up with is to do a better job of dividing up classifications/regions/sections/et al and work with coaches/administrations on how to do a better job of scheduling. Certainly wouldn't eliminate the situation entirely but it would at least reduce the number of times it happens.

edit to add: One of the attempted solutions that I've been tempted by at times is some sort of promotion/relegation system that isn't based on school size but rather on performance. But here's a great example of why that doesn't work very well at the HS level.

Lowndes County HS in 2005: 14-1, State Champs, allowed only 100 pts in 15 games (6.7), scored 540 points (36). Their regular season included 5 games with an aggregate score of 229-12.

Same school this year: 4-2 , total scoring 128-77. In other words, pretty good but nothing like world beaters, may not even make the playoffs.

Point being that at this level, things are often very volatile as it is, there's not a reliable way to make a promotion/relegation system work that would improve the situation over what we have now.
I agree that the first and best step is to put into place well thought out classifications and assign teams appropriately. That certainly won't eliminate major talent disparities, but it's a start.

Beyond that, I dislike any mechanical solutions such as the running clock or mandating penalties based off of score differentials.

I think if you want to discourage obvious poor sportsmanship in the form of running up the score, probably the best solution would be to establish a peer review system where, at the end of each season, coaches from around the region review any large score differentials and take comments from the coaches on both sides of the game and other observers - if the beaten team's coach doesn't think the opponent was intentionally running up the score, then no harm. If he does, and if other reasonably independent observers corroborate this (press perhaps?) as well as game logs/stats, then grant that panel the power to impose penalties on the offending coaches.

Still not a perfect system as you have the potential for coaches to perform personal vendettas against other coaches and you'd be hard-pressed to find truly objective observers for all games, but it seems to make more sense than a simple "win by more than 50 and get punished" kind of rule.

[Toddzilla]

I HATE running clocks. Always have, always will. It unfairly penalizes the kids who work hard, but are third or fourth on the depth charts. These games are the only ones where those kids would ever get to play for a decent amount of time.Then put the 3rd or 4th string in earlier - its not like the outcome of the game is in question, and it's not like you can't put the first team back in if things get close.

[Crim]

I like the way Shanahan handled it last week; when playing a clearly overmatched team, just instruct your offense to stink to high heaven, and only win 13-3. This approach should be adopted at the high school level.

[stevew]

I thought this thread was about the Chiefs Steelers game this past weekend.

Ping Matt Derrick

It's okay to come out of hiding now.

[Ben E Lou]

Then put the 3rd or 4th string in earlier - its not like the outcome of the game is in question, and it's not like you can't put the first team back in if things get close.Here's the problem with that. What do you do when your team dominates nearly every single week? I'll give you a specific, real-life example.

Back in the late 1980's, Brookstone School in Columbus, GA, one of the 10 or so smallest football-playing schools in the state at the time, had the planets align to the point where there were 4 D-1A players on the team (including an eventual NFL Pro Bowler), and a handful of others that would earn football schollies to smaller schools. BHS had less than 120 males in the entire high school, and around 35-40 of them dressed for Varsity games. The biggest blowout year was definitely '87, when the Cougars started the season averaging well over 50 points per game in the first eight games, with wins of 46-0, 50-6, 38-0, 69-0, 49-7, 47-7, 70-0, 58-18. A big issue came up with the non-star senior starters on that team. They'd worked their BUTTS off for 3-4 years, finally earned a starting spot, and were getting to play *LESS* than their backups (remember, small school, no 3rd string). It's one thing if this happens once or twice a year, but we're talking nearly the entire regular season. The coaches had to relent and let kids who were seniors and starting for the first year play for 2 1/2 to 3 quarters.

As others have pointed out, I really know of no good solution to this kind of issue. It was a tiny school, even for the smallest classification. They weren't dominant every year, so moving them to a higher class wouldn't really have been fair. (Indeed, once that group of players graduated, they reverted back to where they were before: usually somewhere in the middle of the pack, fighting over the table scraps of the last playoff spot or two in the Region.) Nine of the ten regular season games were required games against Region opponents, so scheduling couldn't have been changed. They did approach the opposing coaches prior to the 70-0 game about having a running clock in the second half, which did happen. However, having the backups playing with a running clock every single game would have been pretty crappy for them, and had this been a larger school, it would have REALLLLYYYYY sucked to be 3rd or 4th string.

Here's what I don't understand: I would assume that every state high school association has some sort of governing body that is over athletics, and has the authority to hand out disciplinary actions. Why not leave the decision up to that body, on a case-by-case basis??? Just set up a process where when Coach Smith gets beaten 63-0 and feels like Coach Jones ran up the score, he files a complaint. Coach Jones gets to make his case. ("Look at the tape. My five D1 kids sat before the first half was over. Every starter sat after the first drive in the second half. Mostly JV guys played the entire fourth quarter.") The board decides. Yeah, there might be personal issues at times where a coach tattles on another coach. However, in most cases, the losing coach can tell the difference between somebody running up the score, as opposed to an unfortunate case of a huge talent gap.

[Grammaticus]

In the lastest issue of SI, an article talks about a HS football coach running up the score. However, he did not try to. The coach put in the reserves and called only inside running plays. With 9 minutes to go in the third quarter, up 52-0, he told his QB to take a knee. He decided it might be more humiliating to the coach of the other team to do this. Final score was
60-0. However, Connecticut passed a new "Sportmanship" rule that requires the coach to be suspended for the next game if a team wins by 50 or more points.


I find this a poor attempt to teach sportsmanship. If a head coach is truly doing everything in his ability to try to keep the score from "running up", then why punish the team for being that much better? What if the next game has a playoff spot on the line, or is against a top team? Or why not just use a mercy rule?


When the hell did football become soccer?

[JonInMiddleGA]

They'd worked their BUTTS off for 3-4 years, finally earned a starting spot, and were getting to play *LESS* than their backups (remember, small school, no 3rd string). It's one thing if this happens once or twice a year, but we're talking nearly the entire regular season.

That's pretty much the first scenario that popped into my mind when the suggestion of pulling the starters earlier came up.

And from that same quote, another point that isn't insignificant, about the roster sizes. My old HS is currently dressing about 60 players & that's in the middle sized classification (AAA). Factor in the usual number of injuries & things and you're looking at about a 2 1/2 deep roster, there simply isn't a 3rd or 4th string to put in. And it isn't at all unusual in A or AA to see rosters in the 30's or even in the 20's.

Here's what I don't understand: I would assume that every state high school association has some sort of governing body that is over athletics, and has the authority to hand out disciplinary actions. Why not leave the decision up to that body, on a case-by-case basis???

I think one of the problems (although not necessarily a fatal flaw) is that those boards are typically part time AFAIK. Trying to organize something like a committee meeting in a timely fashion (considering that a coach facing a possible suspension needs to know his status) would be a task that I doubt most organizations would like to avoid. Add in the inevitable claims of bias no matter what was decided arbitrarily & I think you're looking at something that at least the GHSA would rather avoid if possible.

Once again, I'm left without any sense of something that would be "the" solution. Still the only true solution I see is for defense's to stop people from scoring.

[Marc Vaughan]

A local boys soccer tournament game in Ohio high school ended last night 23-0. The coach doing the running did not "call off the dogs" in the way he should have. This team they played had 4 girls, and is in their second or third year of even playing soccer.

It's a tough call because they ideally should never play each other but alas, in the tournament they do. The coach did a poor job but the game should have been called at the half when it was 12-0.

Call me strange but why the obsession with stopping a good team from well playing well?

I played for some good teams as a kid who stomped other teams and have also played in my fair share of teams which have been stomped on (inc. a university team who lost one game around 9-0, admittedly we also used to make line change substitutions so some of us could come off for a smoke, but ;) ) ...

Did I hate being stomped on, yeah not half - but it made me try harder and built character, it also taught me that I'm not going to be 'great' at everything I do in life and also that the 'team' is more important than an individual performance (very important to understand when you're a kid and have watched too many superhero movies ;) ) ... as such I don't see anything wrong in a team beating another team, does it suck to be on the losing side, yeah not half ... but I'd have hated it more if a team had eased off and 'played' with us than steamrollering us, kids aren't stupid.

[Klinglerware]

Call me strange but why the obsession with stopping a good team from well playing well?

I played for some good teams as a kid who stomped other teams and have also played in my fair share of teams which have been stomped on (inc. a university team who lost one game around 9-0, admittedly we also used to make line change substitutions so some of us could come off for a smoke, but ;) ) ...

Did I hate being stomped on, yeah not half - but it made me try harder and built character, it also taught me that I'm not going to be 'great' at everything I do in life and also that the 'team' is more important than an individual performance (very important to understand when you're a kid and have watched too many superhero movies ;) ) ... as such I don't see anything wrong in a team beating another team, does it suck to be on the losing side, yeah not half ... but I'd have hated it more if a team had eased off and 'played' with us than steamrollering us, kids aren't stupid.

I think the Connecticut rule had very specific intentions--stopping the exploits of one head coach with douchebag tendencies. I am not condoning the rule--it is was an ill-conceived stopgap and almost universally reviled.

I wholeheartedly agree with the folks that lopsided scores are usually not the result of running up the score, but due to an inherent mismatch between the two schools. This happens in Connecticut with alarming regularity. Why? Conferences in this state don't do as much to appropriately classify by enrollment as they seem to do in other states. If this is ever addressed, it will go a lot further in making more games in CT competitive than with the stopgap measures currently in place.

I doubt that it will ever happen. High School sports just doesn't inspire the same level of passion in Connecticut that it does in other parts of the country . Here in Fairfield County, athletics are just as likely to be seen as another credential for college admissions. Though the districts tend to be a little wealthier, the interest just isn't there to do what it will take to achieve more equitable scheduling (increased spend and time commitments due to increased travel distances, for example).

Finally, as far as Marc Vaughan's question about "what's wrong with getting stomped on". Nothing is wrong with it. However, there are other issues here--especially with football being a contact sport with unlimited substitution. Suppose you are a high school dressing 25 players, while you are playing a much better team dressing 80. Your team is getting clobbered at half-time. The other team can substitute out its starters, while your starters must remain on the field for longer, since you do not have the depth.
So your fatigued players must continue to play a steady stream of fresh players, making the score even worse, leaving you open to more injury, and so forth.

So, it isn't just a "nature of competition results in winners and losers" issue here. Inappropriate scheduling is just as important an issue. Some of the mismatches generated also can result in some safety issues for contact sports like football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Conferences in this state don't do as much to appropriately classify by enrollment as they seem to do in other states.

This made me curious, so I got to looking.

Apparently they do classify by school size (http://www.casciac.org/scripts/divisions.cgi?boys-football) ... but then it looks like they place teams in conferences (looks like what we call regions in GA) based more on geography than classification?

But I'm still bordering on bewildered by the first suspension caused by the 50 point rule. (The first 50+ win did not result in a suspension because an appeals panel found that the winning coach did what he could to hold down the score, including taking a knee in the 3rd quarter).

In the case where the coach got suspended, his team blew out an opponent from 3 classifications smaller by a score of 60-0. Some articles indicate that the decision to suspend the coach was impacted by the same team winning 57-8 the week before. Okay, maybe that sets some sort of pattern.
The team they beat by 49 was from SIX classifications smaller.

The kicker here is that neither of the losing schools are in the same REGION as the team that blew them out. In other words, there was nothing that I can see that compelled these teams to play in the first place.

Further, the team (Fermi) on the losing end of the 60-0 game has yet to score a single point all season. Thru five games, they've been outscored 219-0. That's an average of a 40-0 loss in their games against all other opponents. The other team, the one that lost by 49 points, beat an even weaker team 46-20 the following week, and then proceeded to lose 54-6 in their next game. In other words, it wasn't just the suspended coach (from East Hartford) who had problems keeping the score down against Sports & Medical Science Academy.

And, in some sort of twist of fate I guess, East Hartford just lost to New Brittain 55-8 last weekend.

Anyhow, looking at the results from Fermi & S&MSA, it seems to me that their coaches (or whomever handles the scheduling) should be facing suspensions for putting their teams in this position in the first place.

[Klinglerware]

This made me curious, so I got to looking.

Apparently they do classify by school size (http://www.casciac.org/scripts/divisions.cgi?boys-football) ... but then it looks like they place teams in conferences (looks like what we call regions in GA) based more on geography than classification?

But I'm still bordering on bewildered by the first suspension caused by the 50 point rule. (The first 50+ win did not result in a suspension because an appeals panel found that the winning coach did what he could to hold down the score, including taking a knee in the 3rd quarter).
.

Yes, they do classify by enrollment size, but I believe that this is done for state playoff purposes only. Whether the schools can schedule appropriate to their size depends on the conference (akin to GA regions I guess) they are in. Some conferences aren't large enough in their present incarnations to split by enrollment, so schools in these conferences have to play other schools in their conference regardless of size...

As far as Fermi-East Hartford goes: They play in the same conference, albeit in different divisions (which are broken out by geography not enrollment)--they may not have had much leeway scheduling wise. The overall conference is probably large enough to split by enrollment levels, so there really isn't much excuse as to why the conference can't be reorganized in this manner. Lynchjm, am I characterizing this correctly?

[waltwal]

this is truly the stupidest rule i have ever heard of in my life. apparently this rule was passed because of some idiot called jack cochran. the problem is that he is no longer around to be affected by the rule. no one likes to see the score run up and it is foolish anyway. there are a million ways to control the score without resorting to the suspension of a coach.

i was a high school football coach for about 30 years and i am sitting here trying to think of anything i have ever come across in coaching that exceeds this rule for pure stupidity and i just can't think of anything that comes close.

[Chief Rum]

I came into this thread to look for Pete Carroll's response.