Coach fired for "shameless" win over rival team

[lookout123]

I play one on one soccer with Lil Lookout. I'm 28 years older than him so I'm bigger, stronger, and have a better understanding of the game. Should I beat him 10-0 every single time to teach him life isn't fair? What purpose would that serve? I don't try to make things fair but I also don't play full tilt with him. That's not good coaching(or parenting). As he progresses I play just a bit harder each time so that victory is within his grasp, but a struggle to achieve. I handicap myself, which makes me a better player while allowing him to be in the game. Sometimes he gets me, but not often.

I understand Jinx's point and I've argued along those same lines myself when griping about soccer coaching, but I think there is a difference here. Beating a team 50-0 is quite an achievement. Beating a team 90-0 is quite an achievement. Leading a team by 97 points and still using your strongest shooters to drill 3 pointers with no restriction is a waste of a learning opportunity for your own team.

[jinx]

I just think playing against a team that wasn't trying anymore because I suck so bad would be more embarrassing than losing by a huge margin... These are high school kids, not pee-wees.
Also there's no way of knowing if they did back off at all; put the 3rd string in, practiced harder 3pt shots etc...

I don't know, if the match up is unfair there's not much to be done about it after the game starts.

[lookout123]

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.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

[Pie]

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.

Maybe it figures that Gainesville played better than it had all season, scoring the game's last two touchdowns. Of course, this might be because Hogan put his third-string nose guard at safety and his third-string cornerback at defensive end. Still.

[Pico and ME]

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

[lumberjim]

The academy ~snip~ specializes in teaching students struggling with ``learning differences,'' such as short attention spans or dyslexia.

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