1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

CT HS Football Coach Suspended For Violating 50 PT Rule

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    There is a HS rule in CT that automatically suspends coaches who's team wins by more than 50 points.


    Losing by 49 is ok . Lose by 50 and the poor kids are traumatized for life.
  2. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Right. There are kids dressing in all black with multiple tats and body piercings and a threat to start the next Columbine because their team got its ass whipped 60-0 one game.
    The Wussification of America continues.
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I don't think it hurts the losing team nearly so much as it makes the winning coach/team look like total asshats. Up six or seven touchdowns and your starters are in the game in the 4th quarter? You're a dickwad. Unless you're one of those little schools with just enough guys to field a team, you can put your reserves in way before then. If they are so much better than the other team at that point, then so be it. But if you've got kids standing on the sidelines who never get to play, and you leave them on the sideline just so your starters can pile it on a little more? Fuck wussification ... that's prickification.
  4. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    On one hand, I don't think there should be automatic penalties for going over some magical point threshold. It's not like 48-0 is that much worse than 56-0 - one is eight TDs with no XP, the other is eight TDs with XP, essentially the same performance but one would be a suspension and one wouldn't.

    That being said, the rule seems to be that winning by 50 just triggers a review of the game, and I imagine a coach can avoid a suspension with any reasonably plausible excuse. ("I was playing third string and they still scored, all we did was run the ball, etc.") Also, given the information coming out about football and concussions, and that they still had starters playing in the fourth quarter, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world that there is a rule like this in place. In terms of the Pussification of Society, it would rank pretty low on my list - it's not "trophies for everyone!!!" in youth soccer or not having cutdown days because it's a girl's sport.
  5. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Point shaving mandated by rule.

    If you don't like losing by huge scores, play better.

    If it is not possible for you to play better, quit.

    No rule says you have to play football.
  6. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    I know everyone thinks this is a back-and-white issue, but I tend to take a middle ground on it.
    Most of the people I work with think running up the score should be avoided at all costs. If it means taking a knee on every play starting in the third quarter or punting on first down, that's what you have to do. I disagree with that.
    But I don't agree with Starman either.
    You play the backups. No trick plays. If you end up scoring 70 or 80 points like that, so be it.
  7. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Because that's what high school football's all about, right Starman? Seeing who's better?

    I don't care anything about the score in this (or similar) instances. I care a helluva lot about the mindset behind the score. If I were the Principal or A.D. and Coach Runitup left second-, third- and lower-string players standing on the sidelines in the fourth quarter of a six-touchdown blowout, I wouldn't need a rule. I'd suspend him (and maybe fire him) myself.

    I do think it'd be bullshit to have starters out there not playing (i.e., taking a knee, etc.) simply because they'd done so well to that point. Put your reserves in and give them a chance to compete. They get to play hard and you coach them as if your season depended on it. You owe it to them just as much as you owe it to your starters. And you revel in their successes or failures as much as you do in that hefty lead your starters built. I don't see how any high school coach can't see this.

    YGBFKM Guest

    Nothing good ever came out of Connecticut.
  9. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    God it hurts me to agree with Starman, but as my former coworker said, "Score more points."

    You don't want to lose by 50? Don't lose by 50. If you're not good enough not to lose by 50, you're no better of a team just because you lost by 49. I'd rather lose by 60 and know they didn't cheapen it by taking knees than lose by 49 and know they pity me enough to not even try.
  10. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    So you're OK with a coach having his starters out there in the 4th quarter just to see how many points said starters could win by?
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I can't understand that either. That is so far from what the ethos of high school sports should be.

    These days, talent in football has gotten so concentrated in the top handful of schools that you could see games like this just about every week if the schools were so inclined. In any given area the top teams are going to play three games that are actually tough and six or seven that are nothing but exhibition workouts. It's usually because they have recruited a lot of players who by rights (and often by district lines) should be on the other sideline.

    Regardless of how the program came to be, though, if this is going to be how the top teams handle their games I can see the other teams not playing them, because this is always going to be the situation between the schools. And those top schools, they do still need to fill out a 10-game schedule.
  12. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Some teams put the reserves in in the second quarter and still win by 70.

    The champions of pussification want:

    1) The best players to hardly be able to play at all;

    2) The backup players to be forced to play a patty-cake, kneel-down, pansy-ass, oh-dear-let's-not-hurt-anybody's-feelings style of fake football (or whatever other sport may apply).

    Say you are the THIRD string QB on a really good team. Since you were a little kid, you have played in your back yard, you have thrown footballs through a hanging tire, you dreamed of getting out there and throwing a pass in a game, etc etc etc etc, but it turns out you are the third-best QB on the team. So you stand on the sidelines patiently and wait your turn.

    So the superstar starter leads your team out to a 28-0 lead, then the second stringer comes in. He doesn't throw many passes but your team is simply way better than the other guys and you add three more touchdowns and now it's 49-0. So here we are at the end of the third quarter, and you, good hardworking third stringer, finally get to play. And what does the coach tell you?

    "Hand the ball off. Fullback off tackle. No option runs, no passes. Kill the clock. If we get inside the 20, just kneel on it."

    So you have to intentionally play like shit, you cannot throw a pass, you cannot do any of the stuff you have practiced for years to do, because the other team sucks ass (or more likely, has quit) and we don't want to hurt their feelings.

    If you don't like getting beat by a huge score, play better.

    If you are the head coach or AD and your teams are consistently and continually getting beat by huge scores, you are playing the wrong teams. Improve your program, get in another league, or drop the sport.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page