Especially if you have fingernails.
Stupid ****s can't even spell San Bernardino correctly.
It's ridiculous that coach would be suspended. If the other team doesn't like it, either get better, or petition the league to change the way it does business. If there's a game on the schedule, a team should come to play, regardless of how weak an opponent is. Use your bench? Absolutely, but don't abandon your systems and expectations of execution to pander to them.
It's a far cry from not keeping score and everybody gets a trophy to this.I would say any league where you're representing a school or a town competitively where the balance of teams can't be changed by an in-house convener who can make trades or balance rosters if they're not fair. Those leagues are for fun, though I don't think the "don't keep score, everyone wins" crowd has it right there, either. Winning and losing is a life lesson and it is up to leagues and administrators to ensure the playing field is as fair as possible.
Leagues certainly should be construed to include teams that have similar population/draw area (or school size), similar resources, and maybe even dictated by coaching and recent success. I really don't think teams want to embarrass teams that much weaker than them, but they also have future games to think about and have playing styles they want to play. I'm going to agree with Starman that automatic mercy rules are a good thing too.
It's a far cry from not keeping score and everybody gets a trophy to this.
Actually if you're on the team that is being humiliated hurting them isn't a bad idea.
161-2 is beyond a reasonable explanation..
High school varsity is a pretty good rule of thumb.
And there need to be very clear mercy-rule/anti-RUTS rules -- running clock once the margin is over 30, or if it hits 50, game over.
Don't leave it up to anybody's decision/discretion; make it automatic.
A score of 161-2, in a fully voluntarily-scheduled game between a juggernaut known for running up scores and a basket case with a record of 1-60 in the last 3 seasons, with the losing team committing a total of two fouls in the whole game, after which the losing coach makes harrumphy morally-superiority comments, looks to me like the losing coach told his players from the opening tip: "stand there and let them score, don't even take any shots, we'll let them win by 100, 150 points, then we'll call the newspapers and play the boo-hoo victim card and get nationwide media sympathy."
And it worked.
Nope.I don't disagree with this...
... but this is bat**** crazy.
So what do you want them to do? Just pass the ball around for 60 minutes and make the poor girls on the losing team feel even more helpless and pathetic? No. You play the game, you play your whole bench, and you just hope that no one on either side gets hurt. I've been on both sides of these (not 161-2, but blatantly one-sided games) and it's not easy for either.
As for the team scheduling a cream puff, why did the cream puff agree to play this game (especially when people apparently knew this coach would do such a thing)? Did they get some cash under the table or something? My high school, which was in a border town in Canada, used to have some sort of arrangement where we'd go over to play a team in Michigan, get our asses handed to us 70-0 or so and get a cheque for doing so. It was a lousy way to make a buck and have all your players embarrassed and ripped to shreds in the press. Eventually, we stopped doing it.
Nobody is gaining anything from a game like this, the winners or the losers.
This.
At some point, you get more out of practice than you do in the game.
Two of the girls had triple-doubles (points, assists, steals). One girl was three steals and two blocks away from a quadruple-double. If you're the winning team, you learned you can beat up the little kid on the playground. If you're the losing team, you learned as much as Stan Marsh's hockey team did when it took on the Detroit Red Wings.