http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/h.../23889277/
Quote:In the report, the referee noted that Riverdale "missed 12-16 free throws intentionally." And that Smyrna "wouldn't get the ball across the half-court line to get a 10-second count or to make us call an over and back violation intentionally."
...
The referee wrote that he finally called the coaches together for a meeting after "a Smyrna player was about to attempt a shot at the wrong basket (but there was a 10-second violation call before they attempted the shot) on purpose.
What the heck are sports coming to. One of the schools apparently claims the coach didn't tell the players to try to lose. Right. HS coaches are also supposed to be teachers, but these two are teaching some messed up lessons, and I don't understand why the schools would want to keep coaches like that on the payroll, but what do I know.
Eh,
Is the goal to win the battle or win the war? Place the responsibility where it belongs, in the vetting system for play-off position.
In my opinion, both coaches were doing exactly what they should be doing, trying to put their teams in a better position for the long haul.
Do we penalize a coach for not playing their best players the entire game? Isn't putting a weaker player in to gain experience for the long haul a recognized tactic? Same difference I think.
This is awful sportsmanship, but why the heck do they have a double-elimination state playoff system??? Looking more into this, the rounds until regional are double-elimination. Why even give teams an incentive to lose? Yeah, I think both coaches and the players are in the wrong here, but when a system gives teams an advantage by losing, you open yourself up to situations like this.
(02-23-2015 11:17 PM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]Eh,
Is the goal to win the battle or win the war? Place the responsibility where it belongs, in the vetting system for play-off position.
In my opinion, both coaches were doing exactly what they should be doing, trying to put their teams in a better position for the long haul.
Do we penalize a coach for not playing their best players the entire game? Isn't putting a weaker player in to gain experience for the long haul a recognized tactic? Same difference I think.
Agree----it is the system that is at fault here. It is disingenuous to devise a system that under any circumstances will reward losing and then act shocked, surprised and morally outraged when teams/coaches/players take the bait------you might as well touch a red hot stove and expect not to get burned.
Where is this outrage when an NFL team protects a few key starters by playing subs for them in the last game of the season, the outcome of which has absolutely no bearing on it playoff match-ups? And make no mistake, this difference between this example and that girls HS game is a matter of "degree" not "kind".
(02-24-2015 07:47 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote: [ -> ]This is awful sportsmanship, but why the heck do they have a double-elimination state playoff system??? Looking more into this, the rounds until regional are double-elimination. Why even give teams an incentive to lose? Yeah, I think both coaches and the players are in the wrong here, but when a system gives teams an advantage by losing, you open yourself up to situations like this.
Being originally from Tennessee, I can explain "some" of the system. Not the trying to lose part.
In Tennessee High School sports, unlike Ohio or Michigan, your District IS your league. The state association divides schools into the various classes AAA, AA, & A. So the eight AAA schools in the Eastern most part of Tenn. is District 1AAA. You then play everyone else in the district during the regular season as well as a few nonconference game to fill the schedule. However, only games against district opponents count for seeding for the district postseason. You are not penalize for playing a tough nonconference schedule. (like being a AA school playing 3 AAA schools, or a team from another district, those loses don't hurt you)
The top 4 teams of the District Tournament then move on to play the top 4 teams of a neighboring district. In this case, District 1AAA plays the teams from District 2AAA. #1 1AAA vs. #4 2AAA, #2 1AAA vs. #3 2AAA, etc.... Then the top 2 schools from the Regional (District 1AAA and 2AAA) move on to the State Tournament. (there are 8 districts in each class in Tenn.)
This allows for better odds of the best teams to making it to the State tournament. How many times has the City of Toledo had 2 top 10 teams but one of them loses to the other in the first round of sectionals because of a blind draw and were faced to play each other. Wouldn't it have been great to see them both in the State Title game. Under the Tennessee system those 2 teams could continue on and possibly face off 5 or 6 times having epic battles.
The NCAA Tournament gets away from this by placing teams from the conference (ex. ACC) by setting them in fake regionals around the country.
btw, Tennessee uses this for all sports, including football.......
Thanks for that background, Terry. I understood the point of it (keeping the best teams from being upset or knocked out early due to a weighted district) when I was reading through the playoff structure on the TSSAA website, but I did not realized that the district is your league.
Setting things up this way can create a situation like this where losing has more value than winning. Banning both schools may just be a bandaid, but I can see why a harsh sentence was necessary to prevent other schools from doing the same thing (being so obvious when it's advantageous in the long run for them to lose) in the future.
Both head coaches have been suspended for the 2015-16 season as well.