"sportsmanship" vs. running up the score

[daj2576]

Continuing to run your standard offense, whatever it may be, with second- and third-team players . . . and continuing to score is one thing. What Bear Bryant did in the 1980 Tennessee-Alabama game is fundamentally different and it caused me to lose all respect for the man.

With a commanding 20-0 lead and the ball on or inside our 5-yard line, with approximately 30 seconds left, Bryant called a timeout to set up a final score which gave the tidy bowl boys a 27-0 margin of victory. In those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to run your standard offense and, if you score, so be it. I don't expect my opponent to take a knee in that situation. What Bryant did, however, was deliberate and bush-league. You simply don't call a timeout with 30 seconds left in the 4th quarter unless it is within the context of a come-from-behind attempt for a winning touchdown.

Having nuanced the argument a bit, I will further muddy the waters and state that, for personal reasons based on 40 years of intrafamilial trash-talking, Vanderbilt is the exception to my rule on this matter. Lay thermonuclear waste to the Commodes on every opportune occasion!!!

Maybe I should have stated as such, but internal to my argument is the presumption that a coach is looking out for the health and fitness of his players, and thus subbing proportionally. I feel like that is the coaches duty whether winning, losing or playing a close game.

What I would like you to do is further extrapolate why you believe that scoring again in regulation is bush league?

I fail to see any logic to suggest that while the game clock is running a team shouldn't be trying to execute its game plan to perfection. Should it have made UT players feel better that Bryant could have scored at that point, and chose not to?

I don't believe so, but I respect your position.

 

[VolFan4Life87]

My opinion - if you can hang enough on the team to ensure they're not going to win, then you let off the gas pedal and coast. Up by 35-42 late in the 3rd, early in the 4th would be my measuring stick.

 

[1974Vol]

In the poll-driven world of college football, it's kind of hard to blame a coach for running up the score. Style points affect perception.

But, I prefer to see my team's scrubs come in when the result is no longer in doubt.

Agree but let the scrubs play and run the offense! You got kids that work just as hard as the 2 deep and they finally get a chance to play and its just wrong IMO not to give them a chance to score. If the 3rd team QB and WR can beat you over the top its not rubbing it in. Its just football.

 

[gnm53108]

Agree but let the scrubs play and run the offense! You got kids that work just as hard as the 2 deep and they finally get a chance to play and its just wrong IMO not to give them a chance to score. If the 3rd team QB and WR can beat you over the top its not rubbing it in. Its just football.

Yup.

 

[daj2576]

First off "sportsmanship" is not displayed on the scoreboard.

Second...It is crazy to risk star players for stats.

Third...Backups gain invaluable experience from playing in live games.

Lastly...Vuck Fandy!

I actually completely agree. I think that too often the idea of sportsmanship is conflated with the act of scoring at will. If you listen to enough people discuss the act of "running up the score" inevitably someone will say that is "unsportsmanlike". I used it here for brevity's sake, and because I couldn't think of another turn of phrase that would best describe my question.

 

[jimallvol]

My take is different. I think you sub when you're up big to get much needed experience for your squad.

I do not like the way things are now in college football with "style points". Oregon's 60 pt showings against inferior squads might have have gotten style points, but it didn't build depth to take on Stanford.

I agree these so called style points is a joke. I don't think it proves crap to leave your starters in a run up the score against a lesser team. I hope that part of the game fades away when the playoffs start.

 

[bamawriter]

Which players on Bama's roster are scrubs? And at what point is a game no longer in doubt? You mean that when the game is no longer in doubt (arguably not until the final buzzer), you prefer to see Bama run out fresh players who are still better than most opponents?

Its like you almost want to sound congenial and honorable, until one reads what you are really saying. lol

So, Bama cannot possibly be sportsmanlike because the guys down the depth chart are quality players? I suppose it doesn't matter if the gameplan goes super vanilla either.

 

[HardKnoxVol]

That's one reason I hate NCAA football video games. I'll be up like 40 points on a team in the 4th and when I throw another TD pass, Herbstreit keeps saying how pointless it is and how unsportsmanlike it is. You don't know my situation? Who are you to tell me what to do and what not to do? If I score again with 8 seconds left, well, then it's not my fault your team sucks balls. Does Jesus love capitalism? No, in fact He's very much against it. However, Jesus loves it when Tennessee is able to beat Vandy 666-0. Go Vols!

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Maybe I should have stated as such, but internal to my argument is the presumption that a coach is looking out for the health and fitness of his players, and thus subbing proportionally. I feel like that is the coaches duty whether winning, losing or playing a close game.

What I would like you to do is further extrapolate why you believe that scoring again in regulation is bush league?

I fail to see any logic to suggest that while the game clock is running a team shouldn't be trying to execute its game plan to perfection. Should it have made UT players feel better that Bryant could have scored at that point, and chose not to?

I don't believe so, but I respect your position.

Scoring, per se, was not bush league; calling a timeout with 30 seconds left on the clock, with a 20-0 lead and the ball on our 5-yard line, all for the purposes of setting up a potential score, was bush-league. What Bryant should have done was to allow the clock to continue running; if they score anyway, so be it. Bryant didn't simply try to "execute his game plan to perfection." He went well out of his way to tack on an additional score, thus leaving the unspoken message, "This one is in your face." That, to me, is the absolute epitome of deliberately running up the score.

 

[daj2576]

So, Bama cannot possibly be sportsmanlike because the guys down the depth chart are quality players? I suppose it doesn't matter if the gameplan goes super vanilla either.

I was simply illustrating how superior Bama's depth and talent is, and that by simply putting in the so-called "scrubs" all they are doing to most teams, is installing a newly fresh superior team.

That isn't a bad thing, or a knock. It is just that your viewpoint doesn't actually do Bama's opponents any favors resembling "sportsmanship", which is what you were insinuating with your "scrubs" comment.

 

[daj2576]

No, what Bryant should have done was to allow the clock to continue running; if they score anyway, so be it. Bryant didn't simply try to "execute his game plan to perfection." He went well out of his way to tack on an additional score, thus leaving the unspoken message, "This one is in your face." That, to me, is the absolute epitome of deliberately running up the score.

I guess I don't see a problem with it. If you play a game to win or lose, inevitably some opponents will become rivals over time. Being a rival is a strictly emotional label created by series of emotional games. The Bama/UT series is a rivalry, an emotional rivalry, and again...no quarter should be asked for, and none given.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I will also include the obvious statement that I do not support hurting other players, or falling into that realm of "unsportsmanlike" conduct. I am simply saying that you play to win, you give your best, and if that means scoring many more points than your opponent. So be it.

A game is played for the chance to win and maybe even win big. That means a game comes with the chance to lose, or lose big. Without that dichotomy the wins and losses have no meaning to those who chose to play.

 

[Vol-in-Atlanta]

I have been thinking about this for a bit, but the prelude to the UT v. Vandy game this weekend has, to me, made this a more pertinent topic.

I have seen some posts where they allege that Franklin was classless going for the last score against Kentucky. I have read others who insist that Jones should run up the score on Vandy if given the option (I fall squarely in the latter category).

It strikes me as odd the way we look at sportsmanship. My thought is that both teams volunteered to play a game. A game's point, inherently, is to determine a winner, or a loser. A loser is no less a loser, if they lose by 1 point late in the game, or fall by 45 in the first half and never gain any ground.

Why then, is it poor form to continue scoring on an opponent? Shouldn't the paradigm be that when you step between these lines, that I am going to give you all I have, until either you quit or time runs out? I expect the same from you in return. Fight fair but don't expect quarter. I will ask for none.

Many say that this idea of "sportsmanship" is to keep from humiliating your opponent. I have two things to say to that, 1) any competitor who loses is going to be hurt, that is the nature of competition and 2) isn't it more humiliating to know that your opponent didn't even have to show you their capabilities because you weren't good enough to see them?

Isn't it more respectful of your opponent, if you are the superior team, to never let off the gas? That shows that you are capable enough to not be pitied. Being shown pity should be the MOST humiliating thing a competitor will ever face, not just getting beat by a superior foe badly.

Similarly stupefying is when I see an indication of coaches who complain to their opponent about running up the score. I would say that if you are getting beat badly whether you are out-talented or out-coached, you have the ability to simply give up. Wave the white flag, call the game. Conversely, you should never expect your opponent to give up or pull back just because your team isn't competing.

TL;DR
Sportsmanship doesn't mean treating your opponent like children, it means playing them as hard as you can until time runs out or they give up. Thoughts?

Another take on the issue.....People are always watching and judging you, either consciously or subconsciously. How you behave when you are winning, lossing, under pressure, behind, have a lead, etc. is always being registered with others. It's what they remember about you and how you make a name for yourself - either good or bad. If I were a coach at any level I wouldn't want to be known for attempting to humilitate the other kids any more than I would want to be known for quitting. The results of most games are forgotten over time, but if you make a bad impression on people over sportsmanship issues it will follow up forever and make you look weak and childish.

 

[oldsmokey67]

this one was tough for me considering tennessee is down and i feel like a few teams made it a point to rub it in a little.bama,florida,notre dame,usc,oregon,ohio st.,and any spurrier coached team would suffer unto me and feel my wraith.if i were a coach i would run it up on any of those teams.

 

[90 Vol]

When the outcome is no longer in question, put in the backups. If the other team can't stop the backups, then it is what it is. One thing to remember about running up the score is that the sun don't always shine on the same dog's azz. Karma can be a real beech.

 

[oldsmokey67]

i would love to humiliate nick satan.score 80 on him if i could.

 

[daj2576]

Another take on the issue.....People are always watching and judging you, either consciously or subconsciously. How you behave when you are winning, lossing, under pressure, behind, have a lead, etc. is always being registered with others. It's what they remember about you and how you make a name for yourself - either good or bad. If I were a coach at any level I wouldn't want to be known for attempting to humilitate the other kids any more than I would want to be known for quitting. The results of most games are forgotten over time, but if you make a bad impression on people over sportsmanship issues it will follow up forever and make you look weak and childish.

I get that many people feel that way.

But I think our culture has flipped in the way we view success and failure. Being embarrassed is to be avoided at all costs...but why?

Example:

Where is the real shame in going toe to toe with Tyson in his prime and getting knocked out in the first minute? You know where you stand in relation to Tyson...if you didn't want to get knocked out, don't get in the ring. You don't learn anything by letting him toy with you for 10 rounds and then him winning by a decision. History has shown that Tyson has looked weak and childish for many things, but him pummeling those who got in the ring with him did not contribute to those labels. And yes, he was just a kid then too.

That's just my view anyway...

 

[oldsmokey67]

When the outcome is no longer in question, put in the backups. If the other team can't stop the backups, then it is what it is. One thing to remember about running up the score is that the sun don't always shine on the same dog's azz. Karma can be a real beech.

look how many times nick satan has done it to tennessee.have no mercy for that a-hole.one of these days he will get paid back big time and i hope i am around to see it.

 

[govols105]

the way we have played and the bad luck we have had the last 15 years, i say forget sportsmanship other than a good game greeting afterwards. butch, run it up leave no doubt!!! except for the cupcakes, all conference play or high ranking teams run it up.

 

[Ten_Titans]

Let me put it this way:

The 22 players in the game should be playing as hard as they can.

That said, leaving your best players in the game during a blow out is not sportsmanlike.

Now, whether you care about being sportsmanlike is entirely opinion based. But that is how I see it.

 

[terrypedigo]

You play the full 60 minutes, if you are up 50-o with 17 seconds I don't think I would run a play action pass, but with 4 or 5 minutes to go that's what the 3rd stringers worked hard in the week is to play that would not be doing them right, run the same offence.

 

[Vol-in-Atlanta]

I get that many people feel that way.

But I think our culture has flipped in the way we view success and failure. Being embarrassed is to be avoided at all costs...but why?

Example:

Where is the real shame in going toe to toe with Tyson in his prime and getting knocked out in the first minute? You know where you stand in relation to Tyson...if you didn't want to get knocked out, don't get in the ring. You don't learn anything by letting him toy with you for 10 rounds and then him winning by a decision. History has shown that Tyson has looked weak and childish for many things, but him pummeling those who got in the ring with him did not contribute to those labels. And yes, he was just a kid then too.

That's just my view anyway...

I agree with you in one sense but this is a faulty analogy. Tyson should give 100% until the fight is over because his opponent is capable of landing a knockout punch any second. But a Highschool basketball team can't score 102 points with 1 minute left in the game to erase a 100 point deficit, so you should put in the subs. Or, you should lose your job coaching kids. The good news is that most highschool and college coaches really are pretty good at doing it, the outliers are the ones you see the newspaper articles about.

 

[vol445]

I have been thinking about this for a bit, but the prelude to the UT v. Vandy game this weekend has, to me, made this a more pertinent topic.

I have seen some posts where they allege that Franklin was classless going for the last score against Kentucky. I have read others who insist that Jones should run up the score on Vandy if given the option (I fall squarely in the latter category).

It strikes me as odd the way we look at sportsmanship. My thought is that both teams volunteered to play a game. A game's point, inherently, is to determine a winner, or a loser. A loser is no less a loser, if they lose by 1 point late in the game, or fall by 45 in the first half and never gain any ground.

Why then, is it poor form to continue scoring on an opponent? Shouldn't the paradigm be that when you step between these lines, that I am going to give you all I have, until either you quit or time runs out? I expect the same from you in return. Fight fair but don't expect quarter. I will ask for none.

Many say that this idea of "sportsmanship" is to keep from humiliating your opponent. I have two things to say to that, 1) any competitor who loses is going to be hurt, that is the nature of competition and 2) isn't it more humiliating to know that your opponent didn't even have to show you their capabilities because you weren't good enough to see them?

Isn't it more respectful of your opponent, if you are the superior team, to never let off the gas? That shows that you are capable enough to not be pitied. Being shown pity should be the MOST humiliating thing a competitor will ever face, not just getting beat by a superior foe badly.

Similarly stupefying is when I see an indication of coaches who complain to their opponent about running up the score. I would say that if you are getting beat badly whether you are out-talented or out-coached, you have the ability to simply give up. Wave the white flag, call the game. Conversely, you should never expect your opponent to give up or pull back just because your team isn't competing.

TL;DR
Sportsmanship doesn't mean treating your opponent like children, it means playing them as hard as you can until time runs out or they give up. Thoughts?

Sheldon cooper I didnt think you liked football. It's vandy run it up
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[SGMVols]

If their starters can't stop your 3rd string, then there's no reason to feel sorry for the 77-0 beatdown they take. Get better players, better coaches, or both.

 

[daj2576]

I agree with you in one sense but this is a faulty analogy. Tyson should give 100% until the fight is over because his opponent is capable of landing a knockout punch any second. But a Highschool basketball team can't score 102 points with 1 minute left in the game to erase a 100 point deficit, so you should put in the subs. Or, you should lose your job coaching kids. The good news is that most highschool and college coaches really are pretty good at doing it, the outliers are the ones you see the newspaper articles about.

I get you point, though there are two things I should say to nit pick. First, I don't think most opponents of Tyson's were capable of winning by knock out, unless he stood there tied up. Second, many here assume that I was saying that you shouldn't be rotating and subbing players. I thought it was obvious, but clearly isn't, that a coaches job is to assure the health and fitness of his players which requires subbing and rotating. At no point though, do I believe you should let off the gas.

 

[Brave Volunteer]

Screw sportsmanship! This isn't pee wee league where mercy rules are in effect to spare kids of low self-esteem. It's up to the opposing team to stop the other team from scoring and vice versa. At this level, there's no such thing as running up the score!