TOTALLY GEEKED!

A high school basketball coach in Southern California was suspended recently following a 161-2 game, in which his team won.  While such an event promotes passionate ‘water-cooler’ debate, the ideologies behind this suspension should be considered from both angles as such a course of action has serious undertones, that will affect the athletes, coaches, parents, and supporters.  As the writer does not know all of the details of the event, this article does not look to support, or undermine, this course of action, rather it seeks to provide a lens through which to examine these types of occurrences (i.e., coaches getting reprimanded following one sided victories, as there have been several examples in recent years), and the messages that such steps convey to the individuals involved, and society as a whole.

Firstly, it should be noted that many variables (e.g., age of athletes, experience, level of competition, ethical issues, tactics and strategies employed by winning team, structure and format of competition), most of which are unknown, would need to be considered before one could appropriately draw a conclusion regarding whether action is warranted as a result of one team overwhelmingly beating another.  Therefore, this article seeks to provide some areas for consideration.

The first thing that came to mind when reading about this through social media was that suspending a coach for winning a game implies that the winning coach did something wrong.  Again, although missing key details, a level of uncertainty is present.  An article regarding the matter (see references) suggests that starting players were benched in the second half, and that their ‘full-court’ press defense was ceased at halftime.  This suggests a level of compassion from the winning coach.  A key question to be asked at this juncture is at what point was the coach expected to ask his team to stop trying?  The essence of sport is the pursuit of excellence, and by asking a team to ‘go easy’ contradicts this, and, and at the same time, undermines the opposition. 

Society views sport as an avenue that can teach and develop many positive attributes such as work ethic, leadership, and resilience.  Olympism (www.olympic.org (link is external)), which is the philosophy that underpins the Olympic movment, promotes the following principles; (1) the balanced development of body, will (character) and mind, (2) the joy found in effort, (3) the educational value of being a good role model, and (4) respect for universal ethics including tolerance, generosity, unity, friendship, non-discrimination, and respect for others and fundamental ethical principles.  It is important to note that at no point is winning or losing mentioned. 

The Olympic motto of ‘Citius, Altius, Fortius’ meaning ‘faster, higher, stronger’ reflects the above stance and supports the notion that at the core of sport is improvement and effort.  As long as competition is pursued ethically (i.e., in the spirit of the game, playing within the rules), then it becomes difficult to see what a coach who wins a game by such a margin should have done differently.  Unfortunately, the same society that believes sport can develop work ethic and resilience, also teaches us (as a result of what behaviours are reinforced) to embrace winning and avoid losing.  As a consequence of administering such a punishment to a coach, it appears that what we are teaching athletes needs to be placed under the microscope—could it be that our gauge of success and values actually need examining? 

Whilst a common measurement of success in sport is objective outcome (i.e., win/loss), perhaps a more internal, and controllable, focus needs to be developed and reinforced (by coaches, administrators, supporters, etc.) so that athletes, regardless of outcome, are able to experience success (e.g., improvements, learning, achieving personal bests, etc.) while simultaneously developing such attributes as resilience. The message that we are conveying to athletes from the losing side by penalizing a coach and team who are competing as hard as they can, is that the winning team did something wrong—and subsequently, the losing team were ‘victims’.  Rather than place blame, this would appear to be a great teaching opportunity to develop spirit and audacity when things are not going as desired.  It is not the intention of this article to discredit the disappointment that the losing side likely would have experienced, however, it is important to consider what suspending a coach in this type of scenario accomplishes.

ESPN Radio’s Colin Cowherd recently suggested that it is likely not the athletes who had issue with losing by such a considerable margin, but rather the parents.  Whilst this is unknown, the parents (and various significant others) do play an active and important role in promoting an environment that allows all athletes and teams to compete as hard as they can, yet determine success by both outcome and performance indicators.  If the same team loses in the next game between these two schools by a smaller margin, and then experiences a similar improvement in the following game, does this represent a degree of success and would we expect it to foster worth ethic and resilience?  

This writer would also like to know why this team who is regularly achieving such one-sided victories is competing in the league that they are currently in, and what could be done by administrators to produce a more competitive league (i.e., rank schools and place in appropriate grades to produce more competitive games).  In these types of situations, it often appears that the system is perpetuating the issue and perhaps taking some administrative action could provide some much needed changes.  

Losing a game by a considerable margin can be incredibly disappointing, however, as a former athlete and coach who has been on the wrong side of many hurtful and lopsided defeats, only one thing comes to mind that could have been worse—and that is if the other team had stopped trying altogether.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-coach-athlete-relationship/201501/suspended-winning