Posted by
Bonham J. Stockton on Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:11:18 AM
By: Bonham J. Stockton
Every year about this time the heat reminds me of one thing
more than anything else, "two-a-days." For those of you unfamiliar
with this term, "two-a-days" refers to the grueling stretch of weeks
in August leading up to the beginning of the school year wherein high school
football teams across the country begin practicing twice a day in preparation
for the upcoming season. The purpose of "two-a-days" is to get the
kids in playing shape after having laid around the pool all summer getting
soft, and put them through a crash
course of whatever playbook the coaches have devised. It was while reminiscing
about my wonderful experience of high school football when I stumbled upon this
article about a “score management” policy that has been adopted in Connecticut.
Apparently
any
coach whose team wins by fifty or more points will now be suspended for
the
following game. (The article I was reading was the Tuesday Morning
Quarterback
column written by Gregg Easterbrook for Page 2 on espn.com.) In this
article the
author referenced the decision made by the Connecticut Interscholastic
Athletic
Conference, praising their efforts. At first I thought it all sounded
reasonable, until he noted that “a team ahead by 50 points ought to be
kneeling
on the ball, regardless of the time remaining; anything else is simply
bad
sportsmanship. Continuing to run up the score, regardless of whether
your third
string is on the field, shows lack of character on the part of the
coach.”
While I agree that heaving the ball down the field like Steve
Spurrier’s Florida
Gator teams in an effort to score 100 points is over the line, playing
the game
hard until the final whistle is not. I played in numerous contests as a
youth,
on the winning and losing sides, where the margin was larger than fifty
points
with almost a full half to play. Usually the winning team would put in
the greenest kids from the bench and run simple draw plays up the
middle. We were never offended that the opposing coach kept calling
plays, or if the new kids in the game played hard or even scored. Often
times we were delighted in ringing the bells of some of the scrubs that
came into the game thereby cathartically releasing the frustration of
the drubbing. Does Mr. Easterbrook fully expect the families
of the players for either team sit there and watch one team take a knee
for the
final 18 minutes? That’s ridiculous.
It's bad enough the liberals have yanked
dodgeball, kickball and other "hall of shame" games out of elementary
schools, now they want to attack high school football? Of course, upon
inspection of the writer’s
background I learned that he works for the Brookings Institute, and was
therefore not surprised to discover his socialist inklings, and became
fairly
certain he never played a down of football in his life. Enraged I
phoned a colleague of
mine who also happened to play ball in high school, and together
transcribed
the following letter which we emailed to Mr. Easterbrook. Hopefully he
will
respond, and such response will be updated here at Bantering Sage. I
urge you
to read our letter, see if you agree, and then respond to Mr.
Easterbrook.
The link to Easterbrook’s article (the blurb you are looking
for is titled “Stop Me Before I Score Again,” located next to a picture of Utah
Blaze quarterback Andy Kelly):
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060801
The link to the AP article about the initial story: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=2457707
SORRY FOR THE EXTRA WORK WITH CUTTING AND PASTING OF LINKS, we here at BS are not advanced technical people.
OUR LETTER:
Dear Gregg,
While I agree that shamelessly running up the score
on an opponent for no other purpose than humiliation is an offense
against common decency and sportsmanship, and should not be condoned,
to outlaw such behavior is just as ridiculous. The whole point of
sportsmanship is to practice is, to teach it, not to enforce it. When
you legally enforce what should be heart-felt you lose the true
principles, and fail to teach the real lesson. The reason the NFL has
had to create so many on the field behavior mandates is because of a
failure of sportsmanship amongst the players, failures that were
created because the lesson taught to them as collegians was “don’t do that or it’s a fifteen
yard penalty” instead of “Because it’s the right
thing to do. Because you always respect your opponent and shouldn’t
show anyone up.” Creating and embracing this Connecticut policy
does nothing but create corrupting overtones that threaten the entire
sanctity of why sporting competition was created in the first place. It
reminds me of affirmative action, while the intentions are admirable,
in the end, the highest goal (ending racism/being sportsmanlike) is
lost. We want people to hire individuals of all races because in their
hearts they believe in equality, not because the government told them
to. We want players
and coaches to act like gentlemen because they understand why it is
important, not because they might get suspended for a game the
following week. This teaches nothing but resentment. We don’t need more
feel-good but harm causing PC BS.
You
and I would probably both agree that any coach who leaves his starters
in to relentlessly throw sixty-yard bombs until the score is 100-0 is a
jerk, but kneeling on the ball and punting the whole fourth quarter
because the score might be 49-0 is more of an insult to the losers than
the final score being 70-0. Have you ever watched a college blowout
where the winning team runs out the final minutes by taking a knee? How
many times do altercations and fights break out? All the time. And they
do because once the winning team starts kneeling they have a tendency
to rub it in, exacerbating the pain of the loss. Imagine if that losing
and frustrated feeling was sustained for a whole quarter, and we’re
talking about high school kids here, it would be absolute madness,
every game like that would have a brawl. Having been on the sidelines
for more than my fair share of whoopings over the years, I will tell
you that the players generally quit looking at the scoreboard by the
time the score is 49-0. We concentrate on what’s happening on the
field, on how our guys are still playing hard, or cheering the back-ups
if they are in, if we aren’t so dejected to just stare at the ground.
The only people who look at the scoreboard are the parents, who I’m
sure, are behind all this asinine nonsense, not the players, and
shouldn’t this be about the players?
Besides
that, controlling the score of the game can be very difficult. You
might be leading 38-0 at the half, and put in your scrubs for the
entire third and fourth quarters. Maybe they score two touchdowns just
running it up the gut, and if they have a competent kicker, the score
is 52-0. Should the coach really be forced to tell the bench guys not
to play just to make some parents happy? Should he really be suspended
in this situation? Why not just enact a mercy rule (like in T-ball)
that
states once the margin becomes more than 50 points the game ends? That
would at least be more reasonable, at least for pee-wee aged kids. But
there are lessons that are a part of high school sports that require
playing the FULL game, they include giving 110% every down, executing
as well as you can every play, and not holding anything back. If the
score gets way out of hand, the coach (as most do) should put in his
bench players and instruct them to play as hard and as well as the
starters. That’s how bench guys learn to become starters. If the score
jumps from 40-0 to 70-0 with third/fourth stringers in the game, so be
it. The parents of the third/fourth stringers have every right to watch
their kids play, and play the game properly, not watching them kneeling
on the ball. The coach has a duty to teach his youngsters who do not
get to play that often to not give up, and to always play as hard as
they can. Just like the losing coach has a responsibility to teach his
players that bad losses are sometimes a part of the game. Neither of
them have a responsibility to little Jimmy’s mommy and daddy that are
tired of sitting in the stands watching their son’s team get beat
70-0.
Sometimes
you never know how bad you are going to beat a team. I remember my
sophomore year of high school we were playing a weaker team and scored
4 touchdowns on our first four possessions. After the first quarter the
score was 28-0. Our opponent that day was not highly regarded so our
coach decided to take the opportunity to play some of our second and
third stringers. Our bench was not that good, and we gave up two quick
scores, making it 28-14. So the starters had to come back in, but the
other team had all the momentum, and jumped ahead 35-28 at half-time.
We eventually pulled away in the second half and won 56-35, but I (the
third string QB) never got into the game because it was too close until
the final minutes. The next week, to ensure the same thing didn’t
happen, Coach left the starters in until the score was 42-0 at the
half. I got to play the whole fourth quarter, I loved it. I even scored
the first touchdown of my life on a 60 yard scramble. Kneeling on the
ball to make sure we didn’t win by more than fifty would have robbed me
of the chance to play, for myself, my brothers, my friends, and my
parents. Not only that, but more importantly, all the mop-up duty gave
me a chance to see what playing in the game was actually like, and
helped prepare me to be ready for a close game situation. And sure
enough, in the final game of the regular season, playing our
arch-rival, fighting for a playoff spot, both the starter and
second-string QBs were knocked out of the game. There was still a
quarter and a half to play, the score was tied 21-21, and it was all up
to me. Our whole season, everything my teammates and I had worked for,
all those hours busting our asses in 110 degree heat during August
two-a-days, came down to a third string quarterback. Well, fortunately,
I had gotten some playing time during some blowouts earlier in the
year, and the real-time experience was certainly responsible, more than
anything else, for me being able to keep my composure and carry the
team to victory.
The next year I was the starter and got knocked out of
our first round playoff game. But our back-up had gotten some playing
time during a blowout earlier in the year honing his skills, and he was
able to play well enough for us to win. The next week I came back and
helped take the team all the way to the state title game. Had the Connecticut
rule been in place, I would have only been able to kneel on the ball as
a sophomore and would have never learned a damn thing. I would have
never been able to prove my talents as a player, to myself or my
coaches, and our team would have been up the creek when our other QBs
went down. I certainly would not have had a chance to play for the
state title, which is an experience I will treasure for the rest of my
life, as will every other member of the team. Had that law been created
in my state I would have probably ended up letting everyone down, and
would have carried that with me for the rest of my life. Football
players have pretty thick skin, losing a game 50-0 or 70-0 will
gradually fade away to the point you won’t even remember the score,
just that it was a trouncing. We lost in the first round of the
playoffs when I was a freshman, and it was a real nasty loss, we got
shut out, but I still can’t recall if the other team scored 50, 60, or
70 points. It could have been 100 for all I know. So what’s worse,
having a bunch of kids eventually forget how bad they once got
annihilated, or one kid letting down his entire school and community
because he had to kneel on the ball?
I
played in plenty of one-sided losses as a youth, they weren’t
much fun, but I never thought that the government should have stepped
in and stopped it. We all knew that getting embarrassed was a risk you
took by stepping on the field. If you weren’t man enough to handle it
you could go play soccer. I learned valuable lessons each time we got
our asses kicked, lessons about the REAL world, and how tough it can be
sometimes. That is what sports is all about, teaching lessons that
children can take with them for the rest of their lives. And no sport
teaches kids how to deal with failure or how to keep at it when times
are tough better than football. Creating this scoring policy sends the
wrong message to kids. It tells them that mommy and daddy will always
be there to protect you, and that society will step in to keep you from
failure. Does this happen to adults? Is that what America
is all about?
Unless you are taught how to deal with hard times as a
youth you will never learn. And unfortunately for this country, parents
are spoiling their children beyond repair and the only place they can
learn some of these life lessons are on the field and in practice.
There are too many damn kids my age (24) that act like a bunch of
pansies that have no idea how to deal with anything. They were too
coddled as youths and will never develop into true men, for which, I’m
sure you’ve found in your research, was a large part why sports were
created and then put into the school systems, to develop strong men.
It’s beyond me how absolutely useless some of my contemporaries are,
but I usually find that those my age that have become quality adults
either played sports in high school or had joined the armed forces upon
graduation. Most of these worthless, lazy, crying ‘oh woe is me’ babies
did neither. The reason for my generation’s lack of mental turpitude
has everything to with the mentality behind the creation of this rule.
High School kids can be pretty solid in mind, they can deal with
things, if they are given the chance to learn how. I highly doubt any
football player has ever come forward and complained that something
needed to be done to stop coaches from running up the score.
I’m
willing to wager the only reason this law got created was because some
whiny parent of one of the teams New London destroyed complained to the
other parents about how the huge loss was hurting her child’s
self-esteem (without asking her kid mind you) and the angry moms all
got together and pressured the board or committee or whoever makes such
proclamations, to create the rule. I wouldn’t even be surprised to find
out that one or more of the committee members were parents of players
that got trounced by New London.
That’s how these things always go, and it is a crock. Just because one
coach is an ego crushing cur doesn't mean we need to resort to making more rules.
If we thought that way all the time then no one could drink a beer
because too many people might drive drunk. Parents need to get their
noses out of their children's business sometimes and let their kids
learn for themselves. Sometimes you take lumps and bruises on the
field, just like in life. And you have to learn how to react to these
things to improve yourself, because in the real world sometimes you
can’t avoid a blow out, and maybe remembering a coach’s words after
suffering such a beating on the field may bring you some peace of mind when
life comes at you hard. It always does for me.
I
hope after reading this you are convinced that while the intentions of
this rule might be good, the practical application is flawed,
inherently un-American and a hindrance to the integrity of the game. We
must remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and
there are some ideas only one’s heart and soul can produce, not the
government. We would all like life to be easy, to be without pain and
suffering, or failure, but it’s not. Sports are one of the few avenues
in which young men can learn these truths and prepare themselves for
the hardships they may bring. I hope to read about your new perspective
on this rule in the next edition of Tuesday Morning Quarterback, and
hope to read you denouncing this decision with as much fervor as I
have.