dazzleberry

"Coach Fired over 100-0 Win"

Did I read that right, I wonder? Surely coach was fired over 100-0 lose. So I hovered over the link and no. He was fired for winning 100-0 and refusing to apologize.

Not a sports fan in general, but that did incite a little outrage. The purpose of sports is winning, and a team shouldn't be expected to apologize for winning, even winning big, even at the high school level.

Except that was a 100-0 win against a school for students with learning disabilities.

So then my outrage took a curlique detour and I couldn't decide if I was outraged at the winning team for 'trouncing' their opponent, or at whoever the hell came up with the idea of pitting a team of 'learning disabled' students against students with no disabilities. That sort of harkens back to an era that I prefer to think of as bygone when people with disabilities were put on display for all the world to ogle at.

Ahh... but I'm actually a certified teacher, and I know what mainstreaming is. I have my loves and my hates with the concept, but one thing I do hate is a 'halfway' theory. If having these two teams square off is some sort of attempt at the most inclusive education possible, then I start waffling again. If team A and team B play against each other, and team A is the highest-ranking in the district and team B hasn't won a game in 5 years, is it somehow more 'sportsman-like' for team A to 'go easy' on team B?

A big part of me says that if team B wants to play in the district, big losses are an inevitable part of the game. That part of me might be around 35% of my opinion. Maybe 33% of my opinion goes back to the public humiliation thing. And the remaining 32% takes a (maybe somewhat condescending) stance that team A should have quit trying to score after half-time. Although that argument is quickly followed by a pragmatic voice that asks what's the difference between a 59-0 victory and a 100-0 victory?

Apparently the winning team quit trying to score after they hit 100. Which, I suppose, is as good an arbitrary place to stop as any.

Then I watched the video and remembered something else from my stint at student teaching. 'Learning disability' doesn't necessarily mean Downs Syndrome or autism. The girls being interviewed were articulate and clear. They might be dyslexic, or perhaps ADD. Their disabilities might not have anything in the world to do with their ability to play basketball.

Indeed, watching the footage of their practice, they looked like a PE class shooting hoops. They sound like teenage girls. And suddenly I have a fourth contender, peeling at least five percentage points from each of the three previous, and that is that the media is having a bit of a field day at the winning team's expense. The articles and interviews are as lopsided as the score was.

So I did a little five-minute web research. These are 2A schools, which means they're small. The winning team is from a private, faith-based school. The losing team is from a private school for students with learning disabilities. The winning team boasts the top scorers and top defensive players in the district.

And, all BS about sports not being just about winning aside-- the real reason good athletes play at the high school level is so they can get a scholarship to the college level. It isn't about life lessons and leadership. It's about winning, getting discovered and making friends.

So,

Poll #1338172
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 7

What's your take on a high school girls basketball team defeating another team 100-0. Oh, by the way, the losing team is from a school for the learning disabled.