The Wussification of America Continues

[LongJim]

Link

[IslandEagle]

Link

←

I have mixed feelings about this. I guess it depends on what you are trying to teach the young men who participate in the sport.

On the one hand, sometimes the best lessons you learn are those were you really get your head handed to you. On the other hand, if you look at the history of sport, especially its British/American roots, in the 19th century, sports were considered to be competition among "gentlemen" and it was considered bad form to continue to pummel your opponent once you had him throroughly beaten.

It seems to me that we have lost both traditions. The one were you learn to take what is dished out and the other where you wouldn't even need a written rule to "call off the dogs" because it was considered a given that no self-respecting competitor would do otherwise.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The rule has good intentions but has problems.

---I have seen coaches who keep their starters in deep into the 4th quarter and continue to score just because they can. This is the problem the rule is trying to stop and something should be done with coaches that TRY to run up the score even though they have a 40+ points lead.

---On the flip side I have seen games in which the starters never played the second half and every team member has been playing and the score continues to climb even though the plays called are very "conservative". This coach should not be criticized or penalized. I remember Houston defeating Tulsa by 100-6 in 1968. The coach (Yoeman) drew a lot of criticism but he explained he played over 80 players and the other team did agree to attempt to play. There were not much of an effort by Tulsa once the score got out of control. That was the only game some of the bench Houston players had played in all year and they were giving it all they had and scoring even though very basic plays were being called. Tulsa had won the previous year.

About the same happened a couple of years ago between OU and A&M and OU won 77-0 and could have been worse.... the interesting item here is that A&M had defeated Baylor 73-10 a month earlier.

Edited May 27, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[BIG DAWG]

This is where people start "thinking" too much about nothing. This is the kind of stuff that is unraveling our society. Rome crumbled from within people, and so will we if we continue to go against the ideas that made us a strong nation.

With the strong, there are the weak...not everyone can be equal.

Trophies for everyone who participates...don't score 50 on another team...make sure that everyone feels successful, ect.

What the hell is going to make our country's youth want to work for anything if everything is going to be given to them so as not to hurt their feelings? That is the question I ask you!

You know what makes me want to work hard? How about getting my ass kicked in sport, how about seeing the BEST team get the trophy and wanting that feeling of pride.

Why the hell would I want a trophy that everyone else is getting?

Does it fell any better if a team lays off on you and you know they are? If Carrol os rolling up someone on Friday night, and they start playing JV kids but you don't lose by more than 50 does it make you feel better? Hell no, you just got your ass handed to youby JV kids.

How about we stop worrying about preparring our kids for life in a world that is always peaches and cream, a world where things are not always fair, a world where they will have to compete with people that are just "that much bette than they are", not a foo-foo utopian world they see until they graduate Highschool and then wake up and do not know how to function in the REAL WORLD.

REMEMBER, ROME FELL FROM WITHIN!

Go Mean Green!

[BIG DAWG]

The SUPER POWER nation we live in today eas built on COMPETITION. It is what our economy is built on, our way of life, it is what has made us strong. You take away competition, and make everyone a WINNER, and everyone loses because we lose our drive to succeed

[NTEagle08]

Come on, the downfall of society, that's taking it a little far. I don't see a problem with it at high school level since some of these games do get way out of hand to where it's just going to play the 48 minutes. The teams are still getting their butts kicked, but it's prevents an outright embarassment. Although if they are to have this rule it should be a mercy rule to where it would end the game, instead of creating an ackward situation where the team that's winning is having to dileberatly try not to score. Or maybe creating a running clock rule to where the clock doesn't stop when one team is up by x number of points.

And the coach for why this rule is a complete a-hole. I mean come on calling a timeout right before halftime when your up by 40+ points.

Edited May 28, 2006 by NTEagle08

[FirefightnRick]

Don't get me started on this creation of an "everyone wins", synthetic society B.S. so many are trying to shove down our throats these days, but I'm right there with you BIG DAWG!

Rick

[BIG DAWG]

but it's prevents an outright embarassment.

...and these kids just can't handle that can they?

This is what I am talking about, we are setting our youth up for failure by candy-coating everything they experience. If you get your tail end handed to you, you weren't good enough that day, get better and move on.

[SilverEagle]

Philosophically speaking, I agree with Big Dawg and FFR, and I'll use my own old High School as an example.

Back in the early 60's (61 and 62) Jacksboro HS (coached by the legendary Chuck Curtis) was an absolute terror, and won the State title (in what is now 3-A) for the first time (they won it again in the early 70's) in 62.

In 1961 my old HS (Decatur) played them in a non-conference game. Jacksboro won 81-0. We went our separate ways and won our respective districts, and met again in bi-district. Everyone in Decatur thought that the first game must have been some sort of abberation and felt that the bi-district game would be much more competitive. It was, Jacksboro won 61-0. So, in a district champion season, Decatur lost to Jacksboro by a total of 142-0.

Now, did the good people (well, most of them are good) of Decatur bitch and gripe to the UIL and demand some sort of rule change about running up the score? No! they made Jacksboro their sworn enemy. They then resolved to work as hard as they could to make their program better, and beat those arrogant SOB's who loved to run the score up on people.

The next year (62) Decatur (in a stroke of genius) scheduled Jacksboro for our homecoming game. We scored first on Jacksboro (the first team to do so that year) and ended up losing the game 70-6. Jacksboro went on to win state.

So, at this point we're up to 212-6 vs Jacksboro. Again, did the people of Decatur bitch and gripe to the "powers that be?"......hell no! They just set their collective jaws even tighter, and strengthened their resolve.

The next season's game was much more competitive, Jacksboro won 36-19. After that season (63), the school board didn't renew the coaches contract and went out and hired the coach that beat Jacksboro in it's play-off run of 1961....Bill Davis.

The 1964 game was a squeaker. Jacksboro won 8-6. "Beat Jacksboro" continued to be the "mantra" of the Decatur High School football program. Meanwhile we used Jacksboro's propensity for running up the score on other teams as a motivation.

The next three seasons 65 to 67, Jacksboro was consisitently ranked either #1 or in the top 5 of the 2-A (which is now 3-A) rankings. Going into their games with Decatur, they were almost always ranked #1 or #2. They continued to try and intimidate their opponents by running up the score on some hapless school the week before. It worked with most of their opponents, but they never figured out that it had the opposite effect on Decatur.

In the three seasons of 65 thru 67 Jacksboro's record was 27-3. All three losses were to Decatur. And two of those losses were on the Jacksboro home field.........Revenge was very sweet.

So the lesson here is this....... you can whine and cry about getting beat up on, or you can adopt the attitude of

I DIDN'T COME HERE TO LOSE!

Edited May 28, 2006 by SilverEagle

[BIG DAWG]

That is what people get from losing...the will to stand up and keep fighting, work harder, get better!

Lets not take this away from the next generation!

[eeally]

I think it is a good rule. Why call a timeout up 35-0....It is a-holes like this that we need a rule. Good Sport is a way of life. Look at Enron! They wanted to win at all cost. Now we have Sarbanes Oxley to protect the weak. Football is just a game no one likes blowouts on either side unless you hate the other side. And hate is not a good thing (they teach that on Sundays)!!!!

Lets give to the next generation....you are right...tell them football is just a game!

[eulesseagle]

You have the Barry Switzers of the world and you have the Tom Landrys of the world....

Both different philosophies for winning.

One was a philandering fool who did not mind furthering his assistant's longevity through the unadulterated sexual promiscuity of their wives.

One who taught the ORDER of life: God, Family & Football.

If a coach or student athelete can not take the occasional "beating" then life's lessons are going to be tough......If a coach can not teach those principles to his kids then, we as a society, have failed.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Running up the score is very stupid.. it does make the opposing folks mad but the real reason is your own team. I graduated from Brownwood during the the Gordon Wood era (he won 9 state-championships, 7 in Brownwood) and he absolutely did not run up scores. Somes scores were one-sided but because of the effort of the reserves. It helps team morale for reserves to get playing time and they may be needed Later or next year. After all they also practice hard every day and help prepare starters as well. One of the best things occured the following year when it was printed that there were maybe 3-4 starters returning. The truth was that is was often more like 7-8 starters since so many who had not started the previous year were playing at least 1/3 of every game. It also helps your own team immediately since starters who are sitting on the sideline and not risking injury and will be in better shape as the season gets late in the year (especially true in high school which has a playoff system).

---Meanwhile I have known of kids ( not Brownwood) who have quit because they just got tired of never playing which hurt the following year. I have also known of great players being sidelined and not be avalable for playoff games after being injured in games while playing just to pad stats or run up scores. That is really stupid.

Edited May 28, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[LoveMG]

Somes scores were one-sided but because of the effort of the reserves.

←

so is a 56-0 score where reserves scored 20 of the points better than when the main players scored all 56 points? maybe the main players needed the work. and does the opponent say ok it was just the reserves we're not mad? it's not like you can tell a reserve not to score, they want to show something too.

65-0 vs ut was bad last time we played there, but it was worse because some of the scoring was their reserves vs. our first team. did dickey learn from 3 plays up the gut with a wounded cobbs to start that game? no. much of the blame in that blowout was the poor play calling and coaching.

[BIG DAWG]

Can't have a thread without throwing DD and/or the coaching staff under the bus...not even ONE

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

so is a 56-0 score where reserves scored 20 of the points better than when the main players scored all 56 points?   maybe the main players needed the work.  and does the opponent say ok it was just the reserves we're not mad?  it's not like you can tell a reserve not to score, they want to show something too.  

65-0 vs ut was bad last time we played there, but it was worse because some of the scoring was their reserves vs. our first team.   did dickey learn from 3 plays up the gut with a wounded cobbs to start that game?  no.  much of the blame in that blowout was the poor play calling and coaching.

←

---Yes it is better..... I least you have some respect for the winning team trying to show some mercy, now the responsibilty shifts to the losing team. We once had a coach in Midland that loved to run-up the score and played the first team all the way to the end. He never won state because by post-season his team was beat up and worn out. [He was hated by other district members as well] His successor won three state championships by playing the bench a lot more. As my other post quoted Bill Yoeman after Houston stomped Tulsa using 80+ players. The opponent did agree to play and not just stand there. Usually that is BS about needing work unless it is one of the first 1-3 games and the player has no experience such as the UT QB this year.

---I really think when Wood at Brownwood played reserves that he knew what he was doing.... he won state NINE times and got close several others... He did not have the best talent all those times but kept morale up by using a lot of players and got the most from his players.... Rarely did anyone have "gaudy" season stats....playing time was split up a lot.. For the first 20 years in Brownwood he averaged over 10 wins a year..... which is tough since only 10 games are scheduled and playoff wins had to be off-set all their loses for 20 years.

Edited May 29, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

Totally lost seems to be a word called sportsmanship. Winning is important but it's also how you win.

This all started because Division 1-A football has no playoff system. Part of the criteria for determining the champion was comparative scores against other teams. So....the better teams would run up the score to make them look good in the eyes of the pollsters.

Personally, I'd rather the coach voluntarily remove his starters when there was a 35 point lead and replace them with second, then third, then scout team players (unless it caused them to lose a year's eligibility). Then if the score continues to mount (and I wouldn't expect the reserves to let up), I wouldn't care about the final point spread because the winning coach was practicing good sportsmanship.

I lost all respect for the Highland Park coach who left his starters in until the last two minutes in the rout of Marshall. If you think that it's being a wuss if you don't rub someone's nose in the dirt just because you can, then God help you.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Totally lost seems to be a word called sportsmanship.  Winning is important but it's also how you win. 

This all started because Division 1-A football has no playoff system.  Part of the criteria for determining the champion was comparative scores against other teams.  So....the better teams would run up the score to make them look good in the eyes of the pollsters.

←

---Nebraska would be in trouble with the 50 point rule. Osborne was the worst ever. They have defeated teams by 50 or more points 76 times, and unlike most others schools most of those have been since WWII. If you look at most schools the ridicious "stomps" took place in the early pre-WII years when teams did not travel as much and terrible mismatches occured. They"earned the 70-10 loss to Txtech a couple of years ago. That one I liked. they defeated us 76-14 the only time we played them.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bi...elta_points.php

[Guest e-bone]

Can't have a thread without throwing DD and/or the coaching staff under the bus...not even ONE

←

That's what LoveMG is here for!

[Texas Stranger]

There's 2 different issues here....simply being blow out by starters and reserves and getting XBOX'ed by someone that airs it out with a big lead, takes timeouts to prolong the half/game, etc. The former just happens sometimes, the latter can and should be adressed, IMO.

[bison]

I left the college class room because I refused to "give a grade" because a studennt felt they "earned" an A by attending class. I was honored to named in the top 5% of collegiate faculty the year I left and was honored the following year in the top 2% of collegiate faculty.

The concept of controlling scores is just more of the "they owe me because" philiosophy which will, IMHO, certifiy us as the largest thrid world nation in the world. The glory days are gone along with the backbone to work, earn and be proud.

[LongJim]

I've always felt that organized sports taught less about winning and losing, and more about life itself. We had a coach that preached this constantly.

Sometimes you would be victorious, and sometimes you would have heartbreak. Sometimes you would be treated unfairly. Sometimes you would benefit unfairly. Sometimes you would make foolish decisions, and pay consequences for them. Sometimes you would plan and prepare well, and have success. Sometimes you would fail even though you planned well. If you sacrificed, and worked hard, you would enjoy success. If you worked as a team, you had much more chance of success than if you tried to "do it all yourself".

It used to be that the ultimate insult in sports was to be called a "quitter". Now, I believe it's being accepted, and encouraged. We're now a nation of 'excuse makers', and 'it's not my fault-er's'.

Things like this 'rule' emasculate what sports is trying to teach, IMO. I fear we're (continuing) to raise a nation that will, at the first sign of adversity, lay down and complain that they're being treated 'unfairly'.

We're building a nation of quitters.

[PlummMeanGreen]

I've always felt that organized sports taught less about winning and losing, and more about life itself.  We had a coach that preached this constantly.

Sometimes you would be victorious, and sometimes you would have heartbreak.  Sometimes you would be treated unfairly.  Sometimes you would benefit unfairly.  Sometimes you would make foolish decisions, and pay consequences for them.  Sometimes you would plan and prepare well, and have success.  Sometimes you would fail even though you planned well.  If you sacrificed, and worked hard, you would enjoy success.  If you worked as a team, you had much more chance of success than if you tried to "do it all yourself".

It used to be that the ultimate insult in sports was to be called a "quitter".  Now, I believe it's being accepted, and encouraged.  We're now a nation of 'excuse makers', and 'it's not my fault-er's'.

Things like this 'rule' emasculate what sports is trying to teach, IMO.  I fear we're (continuing) to raise a nation that will, at the first sign of adversity, lay down and complain that they're being treated 'unfairly'.

We're building a nation of quitters.

←

Good points, LongJim...

Nation of quitters? I sometimes wonder if many of today's Americans would have said when we sent our troops over to Germany to attempt to remove that era's version of Saddam Hussein, ie, Adolph Hitler: "Why do we have to send our boys over there in harm's way? 'Let the Germans work all that out among themselves."

And would that fat-assed bespeckled American independent movie producer have been in the bunker with Hitler apologizing for America's participation in WWII while attempting to also make President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appear to be the anti-Christ?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I don't see much similiarity in a game and war other than you win or lose. In a war you and your family may not be alive after it is over, in a game you will. There is not much at stake other than bragging rights. That changes everything and effects what you do and how you treat people. Personally I have never dragged a friend out of my house after defeating him at cards, dominos etc. I LEAVE HIM HIM WITH SOME DIGNITY even if I may have beaten him severely. I see any sport the same way. If college sports are truly war, then we should break some necks, arms, legs etc. on purpose----in fact biting and stabbing seems acceptable as well. In war the only rule seems to be humain treatment...but then again is "deliberately" scoring 80 points on someone humain?

---Any comparison between Hitler in WWII and Saddam is crazy. Hitler had conquered several countries, was sinking our ships going to Britain, and even declared war on us after Pearl Harbor BEFORE we took an action or declared war on him. Saddam had not crossed any borders in over 10 years and did not declare war on us. In fact when he invaded Iran in the 80's, he did it with our blessing and with a lot of weapons we (Reagan) sold/gave him. If you honestly think Iraq was a horrible terrorist nation.....name ONE terrrorist act against us or Europe supported by them. I think you will find Al-Queda and other groups which had contained no Iraq citizens were responsible instead. Saddam was a terrible person but the world contains a lot of those that we have not attacked. 16 of the 19 people involved in 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq.

---I did not start the war comments. The above paragraph contains facts, not opinions or emotional statements. Don't even think I am the least bit unpatroitic or don't support American soldiers..... I just don't think the decision to invade had any merit nor did most European countries who refused to participate. It appears we are now in another Viet-Nam type mess... I lived through that one too but as draft-bait.

---I do not think today's 20-yr olds are any bigger "Wusses" than we were during the Viet-Nam era or my parents during WWII or my great-grand-parents on the Texas frontier. They all met the challenges placed in front of them. Sometimes it even takes a lot of courage to speak up when others just go along with what is going on. Too bad more did not speak up in Germany during the 1930's. Loud Americans in the 60's and 70's changed how minorities and women were treated and in some cases it cost them..

Edited May 30, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[untgirl04]

---I don't see much similiarity in a game and war other than you win or lose.  In a war you and your family may not be alive after it is over, in a game you will.  There is not much at stake other than bragging rights.  That changes everything and effects what you do and how you treat people.  Personally I have never dragged a friend out of my house after defeating him at cards, dominos etc.  I LEAVE HIM HIM WITH SOME DIGNITY even if I may have beaten him severely. I see any sport the same way.  If college sports are truly war, then we should break some necks, arms, legs etc. on purpose----in fact biting and stabbing seems acceptable as well.  In war the only rule seems to be humain treatment...but then again is "deliberately" scoring 80 points on someone humain?

---Any comparison between Hitler in WWII and Saddam is crazy.  Hitler had conquered several countries, was sinking our ships going to Britain, and even declared war on us after Pearl Harbor BEFORE we took an action or declared war on him.  Saddam had not crossed any borders in over 10 years and did not declare war on us.  In fact when he invaded Iran in the 80's, he did it with our blessing and with a lot of weapons we (Reagan) sold/gave him.  If you honestly think Iraq was a horrible terrorist nation.....name ONE terrrorist act against us or Europe supported by them.   I think you will find Al-Queda and other groups which had contained no Iraq citizens were responsible instead.  Saddam was a terrible person but the world contains a lot of those that we have not attacked.  16 of the 19 people involved in 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq.

---I did not start the war comments.  The above paragraph contains facts, not  opinions or emotional statements.  Don't even think I am the least bit unpatroitic or don't support American soldiers..... I just don't think the decision to invade had any merit nor did most European countries who refused to participate.  It appears we are now in another Viet-Nam type mess... I lived through that one too but as draft-bait.

---I do not think today's 20-yr olds are any bigger "Wusses" than we were during the Viet-Nam era or my parents during WWII or my great-grand-parents on the Texas frontier.  They all met the challenges placed in front of them.  Sometimes it even takes a lot of courage to speak up when others just go along with what is going on.  Too bad more did not speak up in Germany during the 1930's.  Loud Americans in the 60's and 70's changed  how minorities and women were treated and in some cases it cost them..

←

Actually, the Saddam/Hitler comparison is not as off as you'd like to think. Although it's true Saddam was not invading as many countries, he was still in the genocide business. You can find out more here: Human Rights Watch Report on Iraq

Edited May 30, 2006 by untgirl04