All the great quotes and stories of sport are about winning or losing. None of them are about the margin of victory. You learn more from getting blown out than you do many other activities in sports.
When UGA was getting blown out 28-0 in the Sugar, we learned that a Mark Richt team never gives up. When UT was getting blown out 41-7 in 2003 by UGA, we learn that a Fulmer team will quit when the going gets tough.
Does this sort of legislation stop at 50 points? Why not 40 or even 30 points? Who decides what is running it up vs. a blowout. I've seen fans defend a 70-0 score as not running it up, and then turn around and cry about a 51-7 score as running it up (I'm looking at you GT fans).
The story just shows how nancy sport is becoming. What's next? Will we add judges to sports and grade on form and degree of difficulty?
Bear would not approve
(hat tip to DawgFreak on DawgPost.com)
pwd
13 comments:
You're actually giving Tennessee too much credit for the 2003 game. They didn't quit when the score was 41-7; they quit when the score was 20-7 and they decided that after Sean Jones's amazing 92-yard fumble return, life just wasn't worth living anymore.
Much as I hate to borrow from the Steve Spurrier Manifesto, I have to agree with him on his scoring philosophy: "I'll stop trying to score on them when they stop trying to score on me" (or something to that effect). It's not the other team's responsibility to be nice; it's your responsibility to stop them. If they're up by 50 in the fourth quarter and still passing, don't whine about it, go to a nickel package and try to stop the pass, for Pete's sake. And if you've still got your starting defense in while they've got their fourth-stringers out there on offense and they're still scoring on your ass, suck it up, admit your team is terrible, wait for the clock to run out, and move on.
I'm reminded of the Texas A&M fans whining about how Oklahoma supposedly ran up the score when the Sooners beat the Aggies 77-0 a few years ago. This was despite the fact that OU had nearly all their offensive starters on the bench by halftime and only threw three passes the entire second half. I don't remember which columnist said it, but it was something along the lines of, "No, if Bob Stoops had really been trying to run up the score, he would've gotten up into the hundreds. So quit bitching."
Actually, I am surprised to find myself not totally offended by the Connecticuit decision. On one hand, everything you say is absolutely true. But on the other hand, what the decision may be indicative of is the complete lack of common sense and decency that we seem to have developed in society in general. It shouldn't be necessary to have a rule setting a guidline for good sportsmanship. That they felt the need to do so, is an embarrassment as a society. Fwiw, the fact that people defend their position by using Spurrier as an example of what is right is just...wrong.
It's kind of like the "move over" law in Georgia. Who doesn't have enough common sense to move over when there is a police stopping another driver? Apparently, Georgia drivers or at least enough of them to justify the statute.
I don't know of a 70-0 Tech victory, but they did beat Navy 70-7 in 2001, then whined a year later when UGA whacked 'em 51-7. I don't know about you but the fact that they would run up 70 points on a group of brave young men who would soon be fighting to defend our country overseas pretty much proves conclusively that Georgia Tech hates America.
As for anonymous, I can only respond with a paraphrase of an H.L. Mencken quote from long ago: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the Georgia driver."
It's not just about being a good sport, but about being a good coach, and you shouldn't need a rule for either one.
To be a good coach, when you're up big late in the game you take your starters out so they don't get hurt and you give your backups some game time experience. Mainly you run the ball and kill the clock; go home healthy for next week's game.
To be a good sport you don't run double reverses or the old "fumbleroosky" when you're up by three touchdowns with two minutes left.
It's called class. There's no need to kick a man when he's down, it's enough you put him down.
My personal opinion is that if you don't want to get blown out, you can either be a better team or schedule lesser opponenets. I don't think that there should be rules governing a running up the score.
That being said, I do think that running up the score is generally a bad idea unless you're doing it while your starters are firmly on the bench. I wonder if Bob Stoops agrees with me after his disasterous (in terms of meeting expectations) 2005 season? True he might've cleared the bench in 2003's rout of A&M but he steadfastly kept his starters in blowouts during the entire 2004 season (Texas comes to mind) and paid dearly for it in 2005. Fortunately, I saw it coming and made a good chunk of money off th TCU game.
I also don't think that running up the score should benefit you in polls or standings. I'm glad the NFL got rid of that tiebreaker and I'm glad the BCS started de-emphasizing margin of victory.
I'm sort of with Dante. It's one thing to keep Jason White in their throwing fade routes to Mark Clayton in the corner of the end zone ... and it's another to have your third-string QB in their trying to run the offensive package. What kind of game experience can you get if you're third-string, and they only thing the coach asks you to do is turn around and hand the ball to the walk-on senior running back?
Let him throw a couple of quick slants here and there, get some things under his belt.
I've seen fans defend a 70-0 score as not running it up, and then turn around and cry about a 51-7 score as running it up (I'm looking at you GT fans).
I'd hope that if Gailey ever had the chance, he'd pile up 90 on UGA - and I'd expect the same the other direction (though I'm sure some UGa fans would go crying about running up the score). I'd be throwing streaks to Calvin with 25 seconds left in the 4th.
If you won't run up the score on your rival, then you're a pansy who doesn't deserve to be playing sports.
Another big GT win I feel the need to point out was 222-0 vs. Cumberland, although that was admittedly in a different era of football.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with running up the score. Sure, it's classy and gentlemanly to take out your starters after you've got a solid lead (also practical since it lets the 2nd-string guys get some experience), but if you want to leave in your big-time guys and go for broke, I say fine.
Trying to legislate classiness into a sport is unnecessary. Rules should be there to protect the players' bodies, not their pride.
"I'd hope that if Gailey ever had the chance, he'd pile up 90 on UGA - and I'd expect the same the other direction"
I'd hope that if Richt ever got the chance he'd just take the win and get everybody from the bench some playing time against one of UGA's big rivals. That would get future starters some much needed field time and it would give the Rudys of the team some something to look back on after their stints as UGA players. Now if UGA's bench could tack 90 on GT, then that would be fun but leave the Calvins on the bench.
Nathan - if Gailey coaches at GT for 8 more years, he has a solid shot at hanging 90 on UGA.
Aggregate.
pwd
Basically what a coach has to consider is, Do I leave my starters in and risk them getting injured just to pile a couple more f$#!-you TDs on this rival team, or do I take them out and see what the bench players can do? If the coach decides he wants those points, it's his prerogative -- stop them from scoring if you can.
Richt has never been a pile-'em-on kind of guy at Georgia. Even in the rare instances when we do drop 50 or 60 on someone -- Tech in '02, Kentucky in '04 -- it's usually because the other team has completely given up or they keep screwing up and handing us the ball in golden-opportunity situations. Sometimes I wish he would make a concerted effort to run up the score, maybe just once a season drop 70 on someone to show that the Dawgs are not to be trifled with. There's really no reason we couldn't have hit ULM with 50 or 60 points last season, for instance, but it just didn't end up happening.
I talked with Blake Barnes dad before the MSU game. He said Richt apologized to Blake near the end of one of the early games last year. I think it was ULM.
basically said..."Sorry to do this to you kid, but we've got these guys whipped. I can't let you throw. You've got to go in there and hand it off and close it down."
I have no problem with Richt doing THAT.
I just wish he had opened a can of whoop a$$ from the opening bell.
Like Switzer says, "let's hang half a hundred on these suckers before half and go drink some beer."
pwd
I once coached a team in a homecoming game...we led 46-0 at halftime..starters out..no passes..no tricks from 2d qtr on...the opposing coach put his players on the bus and went home..his fans, team, and assistants couldn't dissuade him..lesson learned: quitting is easier..also, once had an underdog team lead me 6-0 at half..fans booed me off the field..came back to win 63-6..all fans booed me off the field...you can't please'em all so just play your game and let the other side play theirs.
Post a Comment