Yes, but I disagree with mercy rules in general. Kids aren’t playing sports to win or lose, they’re playing to get exercise, learn teamwork, and all that. What do mercy rules teach kids beyond quitting when they’re far behind?
Does “all that” also include having fun? I know that when you’re losing that hard it’s not that fun. I also have to wonder about the kids who enjoy crushing their opponent to that degree. I know some people enjoy beating up those that are weaker than themselves, however I enjoy a more fair match-up.
Meh, for me it depends on the circumstances. I can see your point if we’re talking about high school level and up, but below that? If the idea is to encourage participation/fun, not focus so much on the score but on the ideas you outline, and lay the groundwork for future involvement then there might be some value in a mercy rule.
Do you think the mercy rules teach the winning side anything (good or bad)?
I didn’t comment on whether it was more fun to win than lose. I said it’s not fun to lose miserably. Even if you’re losing, as long as a game is close there is still an opportunity to win, which generally makes a game fun and exciting. When you’re losing by 100 points there is no illusion of winning and the game becomes unfun. My opinion.
When I’m playing games with children I generally don’t go all out in an effort to beat them. I know they will have more fun if they have an illusion they will beat me, even if I hardly ever let them. I know they are more likely to enjoy the game and continue to improve if they don’t feel humiliated every time they play.
If a Little League game is 20-0 after two innings and one team is miserable, I have no problem calling it off. I don’t think getting crushed in a football game is too much for high school players to endure, though. It might even teach them some valuable things.
I think coaches have a duty to talk to their teams about fair play and instill a sense of sportsmanship in them. I’m not sure forcing players to show mercy by calling off the game teaches them much.
Should we teach high school kids to quit as soon as something becomes “unfun”?
We’re talking about high school kids versus high school kids, not parents versus children. And we’re talking about one game, not the entire season. Skill levels vary wildly in high school. It’s possible the team that got crushed this week wins next week against a different opponent.
The fact that there is a “lopsided score committee” – even more, a committee that has the power to suspend a high school coach – is a glaring example of political correctness. It’s in the spirit of “participation trophy” coddling.
I only meant to show a competition between people of vastly unequal skill. Age is irrelevant, as I know for a fact that certain 12 year olds could beat my butt at certain games.
These were two undefeated teams. This far into a season, an undefeated team is a pretty strong team! At this point in the season teams are vying for league and state playoff positions.
(I realize your statement was in response to someone else and it really doesn’t reflect your approach to this matter.)
I don’t think every game being fun is a requirement, no. I think that’s an impossible expectation, in fact. Sports should be fun for kids in general, but as with all things there will be ups and downs.
I know that skill levels in high school vary a lot, so you’re going to have games like this.
I suspect that at the high school level the players have reached (or should have reached) a baseline level of maturity that they can deal with certain realities (like losing big sometimes, and not receiving a trophy just for participating).
It’s not like we’re giving a trophy to both sides. It’s about forcing kids to do something they don’t want to do because “it’s the rules”, rather than changing the rules to make these situations not happen. Why shouldn’t the game be called, winning team gets that all important W in their column, then reshuffle the teams to be more competitive and restart the game as an exhibition match? That would probably be more fun for everyone involved: players and spectators.
No worries. IMO it definitely makes a difference depending on the level of competition. Maybe it’s because back in the day my pee wee football team was on the losing end of some gruesome scores, and at that age it discouraged me from participating in team sports for a few years afterwards.
My grandsons play baseball on a highly competitive traveling youth team. They play in Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Cooperstown, Omaha, Denver, etc. The team cuts kids. Kids get benched. Their goal at this level is to develop strong skills that will get them D1 scholarships. The program even has graduates who play in the Majors.
The program directors put the teams into tournaments where they’ll face teams even tougher than they are. The kids relish rising to the occasion and fight to hang in with stronger teams. Occasionally they play a team that they crush, and the tournament run-rules end the game early. For the kids, there is thrill of victory, yet they’ll tell you it’s only a mushy satisfaction. Other times the run into a team that crushes them, and it hurts to get run-ruled, but afterward they analyze with the coaches what happened, and learn from what the experience.
And when they are on the brink of getting run-ruled, it’s amazing to see them fight to get that one more run to keep them in a game where they are clearly over their heads.
These are middle-school kids. Competitive. Proud. Stubbornly persistent.
These are the kinds of kids who will be on the high school varsity teams. I have no doubt that the kids in that “lopsided” football game that is the subject of this thread are of the same mettle.
Remember. These were two undefeated teams at the time. Both teams are skilled.
Sometimes a game just goes badly.
Last week Michigan crushed Notre Dame in a lopsided victory. Both those teams are highly skilled, and are top-tier programs. Sometimes it just falls apart for a team.