I read about this a few days ago and that article was a bit more detailed. ESPN.com, maybe? I'll look later. The coach kept his first string game plan from start to 100-0 and then he put restrictions on his team. He was cheering and shouting the whole time. It's his team so he can do what he wants, but I think it could have been handled better.

When I'm coaching a blowout I'll play my first string plan until there is a five point lead (soccer, so lower scoring). After that I'll encourage the kids to keep hitting the net, but I'll take my strongest shooters and require they shoot with their weak foot or off a header. If we're still running rampant I'll add a 3 pass minimum to every move. After that I start switching positions so the kids are forced to practice something they don't normally do in game situations. The restrictions aren't to give the other team a chance to win, they are a way of pushing my kids out of the comfort zone so they'll learn to be better players. If my kids won a game 30-0 but every goal after the fifth was scored off a headshot, I'd be cheering them on and happy (but embarrassed) with the result. It's just my opinion, but I believe good coaching doesn't always mean a complete blowout. That doesn't teach anyone anything.

This is the complete opposite of that other article we had a while back, where parents and fans of one team split up to cheer for the opposing team, who were from a maximum-security correctional facility. That was good sportsmanship.
Oh yeah, here's the ESPN article.

Now that was 'Christ-like', something you would hope to see from a Christian school.

well. there's the problem....the losers were all dyslexic.....they had the scores inverted....they probably thought they were winning the whole time..

I didn't see anything in the article that said he didn't.

I'm surprised that these schools are in the same league. If they are that disparate, they should be in different leagues/divisions.

I've heard, at least my dad saw something on TV about it or heard it on the radio, that the coach did not substitute his better players with third or more string. He said his team wanted to score 100 points so they went for it. He missed an opportunity, if this is true, and denied his "lesser" players an experience.

Ok. Didn't get this far in the thread. Yeah, then I'd have to agree. He could have been working out his weaker players.

I still think they should have never been set up to play each other.